Bill C-41

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Criminal Code in order to create a regime under which the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness may authorize an eligible person to carry out, in a geographic area that is controlled by a terrorist group and for certain purposes, activities that otherwise would be prohibited under paragraph 83.03(b) of that Act (which becomes subsection 83.03(2)). It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Criminal Code

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

moved that Bill C-41, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, it is truly an honour to begin debate today on Bill C-41. This legislation aims to address important aspects of the deepening crisis in Afghanistan and responds to Canadian humanitarian aid agencies and their pleas to be able to deliver relief to a country on the brink. This work stems from the cross-party collaborative efforts from the Special Committee on Afghanistan and the important recommendations put forward by members of that committee.

I am proud to have been a member of this committee, but this work is also thanks to the non-governmental organizations and humanitarian aid agencies that advocated and testified at committee for a pathway forward to deliver aid to Afghanistan. The testimony we heard was haunting. The Afghan people have persisted through four decades of war, and since the forceful capture of the country by the Taliban, the world has witnessed the erosion of fundamental rights and the steady deterioration of social and economic systems. This has created the largest humanitarian crisis in the world.

Drawing on testimony from the committee, I want to remind the House that Afghanistan was a country that was reliant on foreign aid before the takeover by the Taliban. The committee’s report states the following:

The World Bank had assessed that Afghanistan’s economy was “shaped by fragility and aid dependence.” Grants were financing some 75% of total public expenditure and were responsible for around 45% of Afghanistan’s gross domestic product in 2020. With the abrupt return to power of the Taliban, Afghanistan—whose currency reserves held abroad were frozen—experienced a significant fiscal contraction at the same time as it essentially became cut-off from the international banking and payments systems. That occurred because the Taliban have long been subject to sanctions in relation to terrorism.

The overall result for the country has been “near economic and institutional collapse, including an inability to provide most basic services and pay civil servant salaries.” The net effect for the Afghan people is that prices have increased, livelihoods have disappeared, and household resources have been exhausted...

To encapsulate the enormity of this situation, John Aylieff, Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific at the WFP, said: “Today, millions of people in Afghanistan—young children, families and communities—stand at the precipice of inhumane hunger and destitution.” Of the 23 million people who required food assistance, nearly 9 million were “one step away from famine,” while some 1 million children were “at risk of perishing this year from acute malnutrition.”

The population of Afghanistan is 40 million people, and 23 million people require food assistance.

What I have described is but a small sample of the testimony we heard. It was clear that Canadian aid agencies were ready and willing to help, but they were unable to do so. According to Michael Messenger, CEO of World Vision Canada, that organization had “two containers full of packets of ready-to-use therapeutic food…to treat children facing the severest forms of malnutrition…[that] can literally bring children back from the brink of death by starvation.” The committee report goes on to say, “The organization could not ship them to Afghanistan, despite the pleas from their team on the ground. Each container can help more than 900 children.”

I am proud of the report from the Special Committee on Afghanistan and am pleased this legislation is in line with recommendations 10 and 11, which called upon the government to ensure that registered Canadian organizations have the clarity and assurances needed to deliver humanitarian assistance to meet the basic needs of the people of Afghanistan without fear of prosecution for violating Canada’s anti-terrorism laws.

Canada has a long and rich history of fighting for human rights and delivering life-saving assistance abroad. Over the last 20 years, many Afghans experienced improved access to health services and education and were able to participate in efforts to build their democracy. This occurred in no small part thanks to the efforts of Canadian organizations providing aid in support of a generation of leaders, many of whom were women, who were building a better country for all Afghans.

The purpose of this bill is to address the fact that Canada’s current legal framework has limited the ability of Canadian aid organizations to provide assistance to the people of Afghanistan due to potential Criminal Code liability. Although the Taliban has taken over as the de facto national authority of Afghanistan, it remains a listed terrorist group under Canada’s Criminal Code.

The Taliban maintains close links with several terrorist groups, and the combination of a weak state and a collapsing economy gives terrorist groups a fertile ground within which to operate, but we must put in place needed reform to address the needs of the Afghan people and to facilitate the assistance they so desperately need. We will find a balanced course of action that will also seek to preserve the integrity of Canada’s counter-terrorism financing measures.

The proposed bill maintains strong counter-terrorist financing measures while presenting an authorization regime to provide protection from criminal liability for the delivery of humanitarian aid and other activities by Canadian organizations. Terrorist financing remains a criminal offence. Authorizations would only shield applicants from criminal liability for providing an unavoidable benefit to a terrorist group associated with activities that serve a specified purpose, subject to strict terms and conditions. An authorization would not shield efforts to deliberately leverage the authorization to provide a benefit to a terrorist group beyond what is incidental and covered by the authorization terms and conditions. Such activities would remain criminal.

We recognize that terrorism is a global threat that requires a concerted international response. Canada’s terrorist financing regime is contained in the Criminal Code and, because of this, aid agencies were restricted in delivering aid as it could be interpreted as providing indirect financial support to the Taliban, which is a criminal offence. This authorization tool would facilitate the delivery of certain activities, like humanitarian assistance, human rights programming and immigration services, in geographic areas controlled by terrorist groups. This means that Canadians holding an authorization and providing these services would no longer be at risk of committing a terrorist financing offence, and foreign citizens, like the people of Afghanistan, would be able to receive the assistance they need in their country or by resettling to Canada.

I have already heard anecdotally that some aid organizations are ramping up their operations in anticipation of the passage of this legislation so they can scale up their work in supporting the people of Afghanistan.

Further, the proposed authorization regime is not restricted to Afghanistan, in order to enable the Government of Canada to respond to similar situations elsewhere in the world, now and in the future.

Under this regime, the Minister of Public Safety would consider applications that have been referred by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and/or the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, who would first need to be satisfied that certain conditions were met. This includes, among other things, that the proposed activity aligns with a permitted purpose and responds to a real and important need.

Once the application has been referred, the Minister of Public Safety would conduct a security review that must assess the impact of granting the authorization on terrorist financing. Factors to be considered include, among others, whether the applicants or those involved in activity implementation have links to terrorist groups or were investigated, charged or convicted of terrorism offences. Those assessments would be led by Public Safety and undertaken by the national security agencies, such as CSIS, the RCMP and CSE, where required.

The issuance of an authorization would ultimately take into account an assessment of benefit, need and capability of the applicant against the assessment of risk of terrorist financing. Any eligible person or organization in Canada, or Canadian organization outside of Canada, could apply for an authorization. This could include Government of Canada officials, as well as persons associated with or acting on behalf of a registered or incorporated Canadian organization. The updated Criminal Code provisions would also set out permissible classes of activities that would achieve certain purposes.

In the current situation in Afghanistan, the delivery of aid and other forms of international assistance inevitably benefits the Taliban through taxation and other fees. This regime would allow Canadian organizations, including Government of Canada departments, to work within the defined scope of an authorization to achieve their goals without risk of running afoul of the law.

Simply put, the changes contemplated in Bill C-41 would allow our aid agencies to go back to what they do best: saving lives.

I know this is an issue that has touched the hearts of all who served on the Special Committee on Afghanistan. We were able to set aside partisan differences and work together to present our report. The bill responds to that report. I was heartened to see this place provide unanimous consent to a motion last week that will ensure that the bill is fast-tracked through the parliamentary process.

I began my speech by outlining the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, but it is not only food insecurity that threatens the lives of millions of Afghans. Health care is in crisis. Women and girls are facing human rights violations that are unthinkable. Afghanistan has one of the highest rates of those living with a disability in the world, after decades of war and land mines. Families have sold their daughters just to survive.

To be honest, the conditions in Afghanistan are beyond comprehension for all of us sitting here in Canada. Sadly, they are a reality for millions of Afghans living under the Taliban regime. Groups like Islamic Relief, World Vision, Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan, Red Cross, CARE Canada and so many others are ready to provide aid to some of the world’s most vulnerable, but they need us to act.

In 2019, The Asia Foundation released a model disability survey of Afghanistan, which found that nearly 80% of adults in Afghanistan have a disability. As a result, many of the households in Afghanistan have become women-led. With the current regime in place, women have been forced out of the economy and out of schools, leaving many households in abject poverty. Those living with disabilities also face heightened violence and insecurity within conflict. Because of this, so many who have a disability in Afghanistan face more difficulties attempting to flee conflict, resulting in a higher reliance on humanitarian aid.

Bill C-41 would be able to reach this population, which has not had the same opportunity to seek refuge in other countries, and would allow for humanitarian aid to flow to Afghanistan to address the specific needs those with disabilities face.

The human rights abuses against women and girls, and the Hazaras, are particularly egregious. Women and girls have been denied their most basic rights, including their right to education and employment, at every turn. Finding different means to control women, the Taliban has imposed strict dress codes, forcing them to wear a burka, a full body covering that obscures their face and body. Women’s freedom of movement has also been severely restricted, with women being allowed to leave their homes only in the company of a male relative. Of course, those who do not comply are met with harassment, abuse and state-sanctioned violence.

The restrictions imposed on women’s education are devastating.

In March 2018, on the floor of the Library of Parliament, in the old Centre Block, at the heart of our democracy, I, along with the Minister of Science, the Minister for Women and Gender Equality, and the Prime Minister, met with the Afghan Dreamers. They were an all-women high school robotics team who, in partnership with FIRST Robotics Canada, had flown from Afghanistan to Canada to compete against high-school teams across the province. They brought their robot from Kabul to Canada.

It is hard to remember these young women and think about their lives today under the Taliban. They showed me what the future of Afghanistan was going to look like, and I remain in hope that this future comes to fruition. When I was speaking with these young women, they told me that when they left Canada to go back home they wanted to open a school dedicated to teaching other women and girls about science, technology, engineering and math. These young women were and continue to be Afghanistan's greatest resource.

Since returning to power, the Taliban has targeted schools like the one envisioned by The Afghan Dreamers, often destroying school buildings and threatening those who teach and attend them. At times, women have been prohibited from attending schools and universities. Women who are pursuing higher education have been forced to abandon their studies. Women are being used as a tool to advance the Taliban's power in the region.

Speaking at the UN Commission on the Status of Women on March 24, Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan advocacy manager Sarah Keeler said:

But while girls the world over are out of education, the situation for girls and women in Afghanistan is unparalleled in its intensity and impact. Under repressive Taliban rule, Afghanistan is now the only country on the planet with the terrible distinction of denying women and girls their right to learn as a policy. Indeed, the Taliban's restrictions amount to system-wide gender persecution, in education and elsewhere.

For girls like Maryam, there are not just the barriers of poverty or lack of infrastructure, already overwhelming enough—there is also ideological malice that has intentionally robbed girls of their rights and hope for the future. “What crime have I committed?”, asks Maryam. She writes to us of feeling hopeless, suicidal and alone. All Afghan women and girls, but perhaps most of all the generation for whom two decades of democratic progress and investment in education provided the catalyst for real achievement and aspiration, are experiencing a profound mental health crisis.

The Hazara minority is no different. Through witnesses who appeared before committee, we heard about the devastation and persecution faced by the Hazara community. Hazaras are a predominantly Shia Muslim ethnic group that has faced systemic discrimination from the Taliban. From being subjected to attacks to forced displacement and other human rights abuses, the Hazara minority remains a vulnerable group in Afghanistan that is in dire need of the support this bill would allow.

Previously, Canada introduced special measures to support Afghans through Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. We have welcomed over 29,000 Afghan refugees since August 2021. These special measures allow the expedited processing of applications from Afghan nationals seeking to immigrate to Canada. A dedicated channel was introduced for applications coming in from a number of measures Canada presented. The special immigration measures program aims to resettle 18,000 people. IRCC also introduced a temporary public policy that creates a pathway to permanent residence for extended family members of former Afghan interpreters who immigrated to Canada under the 2009 and 2012 public policies. More recently, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada introduced a temporary policy for extended family members of former language and cultural advisers. The work that our government has done has been important and life-changing.

While thousands of Afghan nationals have been able to seek refuge in Canada, there are millions more who need our support, and this bill would allow exactly that. We as parliamentarians have an obligation to all Afghans to pass this legislation quickly and judiciously. Aid to Afghanistan remains absolutely vital. With this legislative change, Canada is responding to the growing crisis in Afghanistan. This would also help our government work with like-minded countries and international partners to advance our priorities. Canada has a hard-earned international reputation as both a fierce protector and a steadfast source of humanitarian assistance.

I want to give a special thanks to those who worked on this issue. It is rare in this place that we work together with civil society to make such monumental change, but with this legislation, we will truly save the lives of some of the most vulnerable in the world.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not doubt the member's sincere personal feelings, but I have to say that the government has failed the people of Afghanistan for far too long.

If we reflect on the timelines, the Taliban took Kabul in August 2021. The Afghanistan standing committee report that the member referred to came out in June 2022. It has been nine months since then, and now we are debating this legislation at the end of March 2023. The foreign affairs committee unanimously passed a motion I put forward in the fall of last year reiterating the call from the Afghanistan committee, and passed a similar motion this spring.

This legislation, once passed, does not grant the exemptions yet. We will still have to wait for exemptions to be granted by the government through regulation. We have already been through two winters in Afghanistan under the Taliban, and the very dire situations the member spoke about have persisted throughout that time. However, the government has been very late in responding to unanimous calls, and certainly calls from the opposition, for action. Why has it taken the government so long?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that Canada's terrorist financing regime is contained in the Criminal Code. Work needed to be done to ensure that we were amending the Criminal Code in a way that would give aid organizations the ability to deliver aid in Afghanistan. We also worked with those aid organizations. We took up the recommendations and testimony we heard at the special committee, because we wanted to ensure that we were getting right what we were doing.

I can assure the hon. member that with the regime in place and the authorization regime, we will be looking at things in a very timely manner, because we know the impact that it will have on the ground in Afghanistan.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Oakville North—Burlington for her speech. I share her sadness for the women of Afghanistan.

This situation has always had an emotional impact on me. During the crisis in the summer of 2021, I learned about a strong Afghan community settled in Granby. I had men coming to my office crying, worried about their wives and daughters. I discovered the solidarity and beauty of the Afghan people.

Last fall, I had the opportunity to meet with male Afghan elected officials in Rwanda. Unfortunately, the lone female Afghan representative was unable to attend. She was barred from leaving the country.

At the last IPU meeting I attended in Bahrain, I spoke about my concern for Afghan women, particularly those living in conflict zones, whose education has been disrupted.

It is true that this bill is an important step forward. However, as we have seen in the last few days, international co-operation groups are concerned because, in order to increase their assistance for women internationally, they say that they need financial resources from the Canadian government.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on this.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I applaud the hon. member's advocacy and work on behalf of women and girls not just here in Canada but around the world. I know that groups like Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan are continuing to find ways to provide assistance to women and girls in Afghanistan, often doing it at great risk to their own lives.

I worry that Canadians have forgotten about Afghanistan, but through advocacy like ours and the hon. member's, we continue to shine a light on the abhorrent conditions that women and girls are facing in Afghanistan under the Taliban regime. I think we all need to continue to speak up loudly on behalf of the women and girls in Afghanistan.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I share in the hon. member's horror and grief at what is happening in Afghanistan, with the discrimination and persecution that women in Afghanistan are facing right now. It is part of the reason my NDP colleagues and I have been so frustrated that it has taken 18 months to get here. We have needed this legislation. However, now that it is here, we are hearing concerns from humanitarian organizations that it may contravene international law and Canada's international obligations. In particular, Doctors Without Borders Canada has expressed these concerns.

Why did the government not do a blanket exemption and carve-out, like many organizations have been requesting? There are no other countries doing the kind of bureaucratic process the government has chosen with a registry. I am curious if the member could explain how this does nor does not contravene our international obligations, and why the government did not listen to the organizations on the ground and do a blanket carve-out.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I had not heard those concerns, so I thank the hon. member for bringing them forward.

I will say that Canada was unique among other countries in the way that our terrorist financing regime was designed. It was included in the Criminal Code, so it made it more difficult to make exemptions compared to what other countries have done. I know other countries around the world have granted a blanket exemption, but their terrorist financing provisions were not included in a criminal code the way ours are.

I look forward to the hon. member passing on the concerns that she has heard to me, and I look forward to working with her to ensure that we put forward something that is able to deliver aid to Afghanistan as quickly as possible.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I very much welcome this legislation coming forward, although I share some of the concerns of the hon. member for Victoria. Many of our allies and other donor countries did not have the problems we have had as a country with getting aid workers into Afghanistan without tripping up into the rules against terrorism. I welcome this legislation. We need to get it through quickly.

I was totally moved by my colleague's speech and her emotion about this issue, but our colleagues in Australia, the U.K. and the U.S. did not have the problems that were created for us by the very strict and overly narrow definitions of terrorism that tripped up our aid efforts. Does she have any thoughts on what we can learn from this experience going forward?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think there are lessons to be learned from how the original legislation was drafted. As the hon. member knows, the original legislation was drafted by a previous government. We have been trying to find a way to put in place something that respects what is in the Criminal Code but still allows agencies to deliver aid.

I wish we could have done this many months ago. I was haunted by the testimony we heard at committee. I think of the young women who came to Canada whose lives have been so disrupted by what has happened in their country, a country that at one time not too long ago had so much hope. We were dealing with a system that was already in place, and I think there are always lessons to be learned as we move forward.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is heartbreaking to hear what is happening. I was recently at an Nowruz event with thousands of Afghan women, and the stories we heard about what is happening were beyond belief.

One thing I wanted to ask about was the human rights programming aspect. The parliamentary secretary mentioned that in addition to humanitarian aid, we will now be able to help with human rights programming. Could you specifically address how we might be able to help young women and girls who are not able to get educated at this point through these programs?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am not able to answer that, but I will give it to the hon. member to answer. I would ask the hon. member to address all questions and comments through the Chair, not directly to the member.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, you are welcome to answer if you wish.

As I mentioned previously, groups like Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan, which have been doing such incredible work under a previous Taliban regime, are going to be able to do what they do best on the ground. There are other organizations. I singled them out specifically, but other organizations have teams on the ground in Afghanistan that stand ready to deliver education, aid and whatever is needed for the people of Afghanistan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, on September 11, 2001, a terrorist organization that was using Afghanistan as its base of operations attacked New York and Washington. In response to this attack, Canada joined an American-like coalition that worked to overthrow Afghanistan's Taliban government and supported the transformation of Afghanistan into a free democracy. Canada also joined other countries in establishing tough new domestic anti-terrorism legislation that aided in preventing any kind of presence of or interaction with designated terrorist organizations.

The decision to overthrow Afghanistan's Taliban government was seen as just and a form of retaliation for the lives lost on September 11, but it was also framed as a war for the liberation of the Afghan people. It was widely explained not as a war against Afghanistan but as a war for Afghanistan, in particular for the freedom of the Afghan people.

The spirit of that period was one of profound optimism about the universality of the human aspiration for freedom and democracy and about the possibility of external intervention quickly bringing about that democracy. This optimism was best expressed by then British prime minister Tony Blair, who said:

...ours are not Western values, they are the universal values of the human spirit. And anywhere, any time ordinary people are given the chance to choose, the choice is the same: freedom, not tyranny; democracy, not dictatorship; the rule of law, not the rule of the secret police.

The implication in the minds of many seemed to be that we could use superior firepower to chase out the bad guys, introduce democracy and then quickly move on with our lives.

As Canada joined military efforts to support the transformation of Afghanistan into a free democracy, Afghanistan also became a major focus of Canadian development systems. In this whole enterprise we were motivated by the highest aspirations: to sacrifice blood and treasure to allow women and men on the other side of the world to seize their birthright of freedom. However, on August 15, 2021, almost exactly 20 years after the 9/11 attacks, as the last allied soldiers were pulling out of Afghanistan, it was again overrun by Taliban forces. As of this moment in time at least, our great optimistic efforts to transform Afghanistan ended in failure.

On the same day that Kabul fell, rather than being at his desk working on the desperately needed response to these unfolding events, our Prime Minister was visiting the Governor General to call a domestic election, an election that we did not need, that featured more polarization and demonization of Canadians than any in recent memory and that returned a virtually unchanged Parliament. We would have been so much better off if the Prime Minister had been putting his responsibilities ahead of his perceived political interests.

Leading up to the fall of Afghanistan, the Conservatives had been calling on the government to use special immigration measures to assist the most vulnerable Afghans, those who assisted Canada during the previous 20 years, as well as ethnic and religious minorities, such as Hazaras, Sikhs, Hindus and Christians. In fact, the very first statement I ever made in this House back in 2015 was to call for special immigration measures for Afghan minorities. The government's response to these calls has ranged from slow to non-existent, and lives have been lost as a result.

Outside of the failures of our government, it is worth taking stock of what happened in general between September 11, 2001, and August 15, 2021. What caused the optimism for the expansion of freedom and democracy that drove nation building in Afghanistan post-9/11 to fade into the fatalistic acceptance of the apparent global democratic decline that led the United States and other countries to leave Afghanistan and effectively hand it back to the Taliban?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Repentigny on a point of order.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, the interpreter is saying that the member is speaking so fast that she is having difficulty interpreting. She is doing her best. Could we ask the member to slow down a bit, please?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Of course we need the interpretation to work so that everyone can understand what is being said. The interpreter should have the member's notes. If not, we will be sure to provide them to her.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan can continue his speech.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will. It is my right to speak in the House. I appreciate that.

Transforming Afghanistan was a great and noble goal, but doing worthwhile things is never easy. Supporting the democratic development of Afghanistan was always going to be a long process, and if it was going to work, then it would require a long-term commitment.

Tony Blair is right, in an ultimate sense. The people always ultimately choose freedom over tyranny, but the short-term optimism of the post-9/11 era did not pay enough attention to the need to gradually and painstakingly develop the institutions and political culture of a free pluralistic society over time. We were too quick to want to declare mission accomplished. We cannot expect to simply chase out the bad guys and then roll out the template of free democratic institutions because there is no single template for such institutions.

The core problem was that so-called neo-conservatism was not, in practice, sufficiently conservative. Conservatism, in its essential form, emphasizes the importance of local culture, tradition and familial attachments. To succeed, the institutions and culture of free democracy must be built on that pre-existing local foundation.

There is no single template for democracy because democracy succeeds when it builds on pre-existing cultural structures that have existing legitimacy, which then confer that legitimacy on the emergent democratic structures. This is how democracy was successfully built in the west, especially in the Anglo-American tradition over a long period. If those advancing democracy elsewhere do not build on the existing cultural foundation, then there will inevitably be rival centres of power that compete for legitimacy with the new democrat institutions.

In practice, neo-conservatism was not sufficiently conservative because it did not sufficiently take stock of how deeply embedded traditions and authority structures need to be collaborated with and harnessed in order to build free institutions that are authentic to the local setting over time. Any work of external nation building requires both great patience and even greater humility.

Free societies are not built like buildings. Rather, they grow like trees. Our own long history of halting democratic development in the west building on pre-democratic foundations should have made it clear to us that democratic development was always going to be a long-term project if it was going to be completed.

In one sense, the work of securing democracy is never complete. As the saying goes, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Save for the possibilities of divine intervention or nuclear annihilation, there is no such thing as the end of history. That is as true in Afghanistan as it is anywhere else. The work of building Canadian democracy is not complete, so why should we have expected it to ever be complete in Afghanistan? Of course, the hope of many, and rightly so, was that at some point along the way, external troops would be able to fully withdraw and Afghans themselves would be the ones vigilantly guarding and defending their own freedom, no longer needing outside help.

The critics of continuing western involvements in Afghanistan believed we needed to end so-called forever wars at a certain point and to leave the country to its own work in this regard. This framing of forever wars was highly misleading.

American troops have been stationed in Korea for much, much longer than they have been in Afghanistan. Nobody considers that American presence in Korea a forever war. America's presence in Korea is rather a matter of a contingent of troops helping to guarantee the peace. The withdrawal of Americans from South Korea would create a significant heightened risk of catastrophic conflict, so it is good for America to keep a contingent of troops there as long as is necessary.

The nature of America's presence in Afghanistan was different of course than the nature of its presence in Korea, but the western presence in Afghanistan was still consistent with the gradual drawing down of engagement, more limited air support backing the Afghan army, extremely low casualty figures in the later years compared to the height of the conflict and a trajectory whereby a smaller and less costly presence could, over time, still help sustain local democracy and security.

The fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban was not the inevitable result of facts on the ground. It was the result of a political choice that reflected a change in the western mood, the shift from too optimistic, impatient interventionism without sufficient cultural understand to too pessimistic isolationist abandonment.

As we have seen, the politics of isolationism and withdrawal, of putting domestic issues over external security imperatives, has led to global democratic decline, greater insecurity and ultimately a higher risk of costly war. This is why, in an age of further threats to free democracies, we must be vigilant and active, embracing realistic optimism and strategic patience and making the investments and the sacrifices that are required to keep the world a safe place for freedom and democracy.

The quote I read earlier continues with the poignant line, “The spread of freedom is the best security for the free.”

I hear from time to time from constituents who want us to ignore events far away and instead to simply focus on challenges at home, but history teaches us that impulse to retrench from the world always leads to the decline of democracy and liberty and to threats from abroad washing up on our own shores. When this spirit prevails, the long-term costs to our own well-being and happiness are inevitably much higher than if we had been engaged with international events from the beginning. I hope we learn the lessons of that history and we apply it.

As it relates to Afghanistan, we must now turn our attention to that other legacy of 9/11, which is the impact of anti-terrorism legislation. Anti-terrorism legislation was designed to confront the threat posed by violent non-state actors. Certain states do engage in acts that would fit any coherent legal definition of terrorism, but we have generally found it useful to maintain the possibility of some intercourse with hostile or rights-abusing governments, even those that use terrorism. The extreme isolation associated with a terrorist listing was therefore designed for violent non-state actors as opposed to violent state actors. This design, though, has been stretched and complicated in certain respects in recent years.

First, certain organizations, such as the IRGC or the Wagner Group, may simultaneously function as an international terrorist organization and as part of, or a close affiliate of, a state. In our view, these organizations should still be listed as terrorist entities, but we should acknowledge that such designations move us closer in the direction of capturing state-affiliated entities, instead of just non-state actors, with anti-terrorism legislation. Designating the particular organs of terrorism, rather than the state itself, still provides space for some interaction with other state organs, and is therefore, in my view, quite doable, even without amending the Criminal Code as it exists.

More complicated is the case in which a terrorist organization comes to occupy and function as the de facto authority in the state, and this is now the case in Afghanistan. Removing such an organization from the terrorist list would clearly send the wrong message and weaken legitimate and important sanctions against that group. Withdrawing the designation from a terrorist group once it takes over government would appear to suggest that one way for a terrorist group to get off the terrorist list is to simply take over territory. Again, that would clearly send the wrong message.

However, the Criminal Code, as it currently exists, was not designed for the situation in which a terrorist group also functions as the de facto authority in a state, so it is reasonable to look for ways to make these provisions nimbler, if that nimbleness allows us to preserve the listing of terrorist groups as terrorist groups. Rather than removing the terrorist designation from a terrorist organization that is still a terrorist organization, we should be prepared to thoughtfully amend the Criminal Code to still allow some presence in, and engagement with the people of, a country when that country has been overrun by a terrorist organization without in any way legitimizing that organization.

This brings us to the particular provisions of Bill C-41. Bill C-41 would allow the Government of Canada to grant very limited exemptions to the Anti-Terrorism Act to allow the delivery of humanitarian assistance in areas controlled by terrorist organizations. The legislation does not name Afghanistan or the Taliban directly, but it is clearly designed to allow the government to grant narrow exemptions that would allow the delivery of emergency humanitarian relief into Afghanistan.

Afghanistan faces an ongoing humanitarian crisis, in large part as a result of Taliban misrule. Terrorists are generally not very good at running an economy, yet Canadian charities have not been able to deliver essential humanitarian aid because in the process of delivering that aid to the Afghan people, they may run afoul of the Anti-Terrorism Act and thus risk criminal prosecution.

In this particular case, we are not talking about the expenditure of public funds. We are talking simply about increasing the precision of Criminal Code provisions to give private Canadian charities the freedom to deliver private funds to the suffering people of Afghanistan. Bill C-41 does not prescribe the precise form of the exemptions the government will grant. It would simply give the government the power to grant these exemptions. It is reasonable for a government to have this power to deal with contingency situations, although the government will necessarily be held accountable for its judicious and effective use of this power.

On the basic objective of Bill C-41, the biggest problem I have is that it comes too late, not too late to be useful, but too late for many who have already been suffering under Taliban misrule for over a year and a half. Peer countries have been way ahead of us in addressing this problem, and Parliament has been pushing the government to address this issue for almost all of that time. In fact, immediately after the 2021 election, Conservatives proposed a motion to create a special committee on Afghanistan. When it reported to the House last spring, that committee recommended that changes be made to allow humanitarian assistance to get into Afghanistan. Following that, this past fall, the foreign affairs committee unanimously agreed to my motion calling for changes that would allow humanitarian assistance to get into Afghanistan, reiterating what was in the Afghan committee's report, and the committee adopted a second motion on the matter, proposed by the NDP earlier in the winter session, yet it has still taken until the end of March to actually begin debate on this bill.

When I met with international development stakeholders on the bill, they emphasized a significant concern about timelines, and in a few different senses. They highlighted the issue of timelines for the passage of the legislation in the hope the government will choose to prioritize it within its legislative agenda so the legislation can, indeed, move forward. The bill does need to be studied and debated thoroughly, but we are prepared to move it forward as quickly as possible, provided that sufficient time is set aside for study and debate.

While the principles are important, the bill is technically and legally complicated and does require meaningful examination, but stakeholders are not only concerned about the timeline for the passage of this bill. They are concerned about the timelines the bill would create for them in being able to get to work on the ground. Until this legislation passes, international organizations are potentially prohibited criminally from running humanitarian or development programs in Afghanistan if there is some risk of any portion of those resources eventually ending up in the hands of the Taliban.

This legislation would allow the Minister of Public Safety to grant certain narrow exemptions. From the perspective of these organizations, the legislation marks an improvement. However, the process associated with accessing these exemptions would be time-intensive and potentially highly bureaucratic, with no timeline set out. Again, it is not only about how long it takes to pass the bill, but also how long it would take organizations to be authorized to get to work.

The proposed process is that an exemption would be granted after a thorough review by the public safety minister, but only after the issue has been referred to that minister by another minister, either the immigration or foreign affairs minister, who would presumably have to conduct their own analysis. Exemptions would also have to be granted for each individual organization. If one development organization applies for and receives an exemption to operate a particular program, then another organization, running essentially an equivalent program in the same or different geographic area, would also have to apply for their own separate exemption.

There is also a great deal of uncertainty about how widely an exemption would apply. Would an organization that got an exemption to run a program in one province in one year have to apply for another exemption to extend the program, run the same program in a different province or run the program in another year? From my reading, there is a certain lack of clarity around the breadth of the exemptions that would be introduced.

Multiple organizations doing essentially the same work would each have to apply separately instead of simply being able to proceed with their work based on an exemption granted to someone else. This process seems more bureaucratic and costly than it needs to be, and it raises questions about whether the actual exemptions would be in place in a reasonable amount of time.

It also raises concerns about equity. Would the government subject certain organizations to more scrutiny than others, and would small and diaspora-led organizations be able to access these exemptions alongside larger organizations that have a longer history of working directly with the federal government?

Conservatives have repeatedly highlighted the need to ensure the inclusion of small and diaspora-led organizations in our thinking about international development. It is perhaps natural and inevitable that certain trusted partners are more likely to receive direct government funding, but it would be a grave problem if small and less-known organizations continued to face criminal prohibitions on delivering aid while larger, better-known players were given exemptions in identical situations.

It would seem reasonable for the government to establish certain general categories or situations of exemption, which would apply to all organizations, rather than only grant exemptions on an individual case-by-case basis. We will be digging more into this specific part of the issue at committee. Although we feel there is an urgency around the timeline of passing this legislation, there is also an urgency to ensure that processes are streamlined so that we can get assistance to the people who need it as soon as possible.

When I have been consulting with Canadians about this legislation, some have asked if aid should be flowing into Taliban-controlled Afghanistan at all. We know that the real cause of the suffering of the Afghan people is their Taliban oppressors. Poverty is, in this and so many other cases, the result of unjust and broken political institutions preventing people from moving forward in freedom and security. Why treat the symptom when the cause of the problem remains in place?

To that, I would say that what is true in Afghanistan is true in many places, to a lesser extent, and that is that poverty often has its roots in injustice. When people cannot borrow against their assets because they lack clear title, when a primary breadwinner faces arbitrary arrests and does not have secure access to an objective justice system, when transportation routes of goods are not secure, when corruption limits opportunities, when teenagers cannot go to school for fear of violence there or on the way, these are all too common instances in many parts of the developing world where violence causes or perpetuates poverty.

People everywhere have the ingenuity and the potential to lift themselves out of poverty if they are not held back by unjust systems that deprive them of the security, title and credit that they need to get ahead. The fight for justice and for the recognition of universal human dignity is central to development and poverty alleviation. We need to recognize this reality, but we also still need to attack poverty directly, especially in emergency situations like this.

It is not always possible to go directly to the roots of a problem. In the case of Afghanistan, by choosing to abandon Afghanistan's security and the building of just institutions, we have cut ourselves off from the ability to get at the roots of the problem, but with those bad decisions already baked in, we should still do all that we can to save lives and elevate the conditions of the Afghan people.

We should support such measures, even while recognizing that the Taliban cannot be permitted to continue to inflict its reign of terror on the Afghan people. The political problem will require an eventual solution. Delivering humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan is a necessary form of harm reduction, but we should not lose sight of the underlying injustices, political problems and of the need to look for solutions to them.

Based on this, what can we say about the future of Afghanistan? Nobody can say what surprises will rest around the corner, but the Afghan people deserve our continuing support and goodwill. Continuing contacts between Canadian organizations and Afghans in Afghanistan help all concerned to be informed and create opportunities to respond to emerging issues and dynamics.

We need to start by removing legal barriers that prevent humanitarian aid from getting in. Continuing access to food, education and other essentials will provide Afghans some space to move forward. The involvement of Canadian organizations in this effort will mean contact and two-way awareness that could turn into something else down the road.

We should retain some of the old optimism, because the intervening decades between 2001 and 2021 were not all for nothing. A new generation of Afghans has seen a different set of possibilities, and we will work together to ensure the re-emergence of those possibilities. We must still look for a way to be there for them.

At the end of the day, we know the choice that Afghans will make when they are able, because even if not with the right timelines and the right tactics, the main point was correct: “Ours are not Western values, they are the universal values of the human spirit. And anywhere, any time ordinary people are given the chance to choose, the choice is [always] the same: freedom, not tyranny; democracy, not dictatorship; the rule of law, not the rule of the secret police. The spread of freedom is the best security for the free.”

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, we are seeing women's rights around the world under threat. I highlighted in my own speech the threat to women and girls, their rights in Afghanistan and how egregious they are. However, I find it a bit rich when the hon. member stands up on providing aid to countries that are in such dire need when he has been such a vocal opponent of women's reproductive rights, in particular filibustering a study at the foreign affairs committee on providing resources for organizations that provide sexual and reproductive health in countries around the world.

I do not really have a question. I just wanted to make a comment on the need to support women and girls in Canada and around the world.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are less than an hour into debate on this important government bill on Afghanistan, debate that is, in my view, a year and a half too late. It shows the partisan political approach of the Liberals to immediately try to throw this important debate about Afghanistan over the side and shift to something else.

Beyond that, I would challenge the member to actually be aware of what is happening in the foreign affairs committee. The study that allegedly I have been filibustering has actually finished now. We have been through four hearings at the foreign affairs committee on that study, and I would invite the member to listen to some of the very thoughtful and insightful witnesses. We heard some witnesses from western NGOs. We also heard witnesses from throughout the developing world who shared their particular perspective on these issues.

I would welcome the member to actually come to the committee, as I have never seen her there before, to review the blues, listen to the witnesses and maybe be aware of what is actually happening at committee before she tries to divert an important debate on Afghanistan with something else.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. If the government was as quick to introduce this bill as my colleague was in reading his speech, Bill C‑41 would have been passed a long time ago. I want to congratulate him because I have never heard someone say so many words so quickly.

There are a lot of things in this bill. Members know that I care a lot about this bill. With the support of my colleagues, I was one of the first to ask questions about this. We have been waiting over a year for this bill, and it is here.

We have a lot of questions about Bill C‑41. One quickly comes to mind. Authorization must be sought from a number of departments and agencies. That is not clear. What Bill C‑41 is saying is that the Government of Canada must give answers to these requests in a timely manner.

Does my colleague believe that this will be done in a timely manner—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, on much simpler matters such as passports and immigration applications, the government has massively expanded the delays we are seeing. When we already have families who are being privately sponsored for refugee status having to wait for three years and we hear the government saying it is going to approve exemptions in a reasonable amount of time, we do not have three years to wait, clearly, to get these exemptions moving forward.

By the sound of the question, my colleague from the Bloc has exactly the same concerns that I have, which are around timelines: how long it has taken us to get this far and how much longer it will take to not only pass the legislation, which is part of the process, but also get to a point where organizations are able to implement programs.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to comment on how disheartening it is to hear members of the Conservative Party not acknowledging the importance of women's reproductive rights when we are talking about humanitarian aid. It is very disheartening.

However, I will move on. Clearly, the reproductive rights of men are not at stake here, so I guess it is not important. I apologize, it is an important issue.

Today we are talking about how we need to ensure that the people of Afghanistan are receiving life-saving humanitarian aid. I want to hear from the member whether he feels that, in the current bill we are discussing, the processes would create challenges for smaller aid agencies that do not have the same level of resources as larger ones.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, again, we see the eagerness of Liberal and NDP politicians to shift the conversation to abortion.

I would just assure them again that there is a study happening at the foreign affairs committee. Four meetings have taken place. Neither of the members who have tried to divert this conversation from aid into Afghanistan to that issue have been at the foreign affairs committee. I participated actively in that study. My comments are on the record.

I would rather focus our discussion today on Bill C-41, which is the bill that is before the House. On this point, I agree with the member. This raises some questions about small organizations and whether small or medium-sized diaspora-led organizations would have an easy time accessing these exemptions. That is why I have raised this idea. What if we say that if one organization receives an exemption to operate under particular conditions in a particular place, then another organization that is doing more or less the same thing would be able to benefit from the same exemption?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, I have been a bit torn on this bill due to my own past history and involvement in Afghanistan and due to my hatred of the Taliban.

I care deeply about the Afghan women and girls and Afghans in general. I do believe we need to support this bill, but we do need to get it right.

Tied to this, though, in the Special Committee on Afghanistan, recommendation 2 talked about the importance of interdepartmental coordination. This is a good example of a bill that is coming from public safety to change the Criminal Code, but it would tie in to foreign aid, international aid and policies within foreign policy.

I would like the member to comment on the complexities of this. It would be nice to know how the government is actually going to lead this effort to make sure that, however it gets put through, it is done right.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a great point from my colleague. I want to recognize him and thank him for his service.

It has been inspiring for me to see how veterans developed close connections with the Afghan people and have been so instrumental in trying to support the Afghan people through immigration measures as well as wanting to be part of the humanitarian response to the challenges they are facing.

The member is right that government can be so difficult to navigate and so complicated. That applies to individuals, to organizations and especially to smaller organizations that are trying to engage in these processes.

I would call on the government to do everything it can to minimize red tape, especially the red tape that organizations that are trying to engage the government have to experience. We want people to be able to get these exemptions done so that they can get programming out to those who need it.

It is not going to be good enough to pass this legislation and then have a parade. We need to actually get all the way through the process so that aid could be delivered to people on the ground by as many organizations as possible.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was at the meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development where we debated women's sexual and reproductive health and where we heard from women. NGOs came to ask for more help for Afghan women who have been raped. These are terrible situations. Representatives from the Afghan community came to my constituency office in Granby to complain about how slow the government was moving.

Beyond that, this is an unfortunate example of what happens when we allow religious values to come before science and dominate a government. This is an example of the rise of fundamentalism, which is why women's rights are being set back and violated. Women need this bill now. The Bloc Québécois will collaborate to speed up the process. As far as foreign aid is concerned, we heard from NGOs that were worried about funding. The federal government claims to have a feminist foreign policy. It should provide the funding to back up that claim.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, there were a lot of different things in there.

The member sort of had an implied criticism that there is something going on about religious values in general. I want to identify the fact that many of the leading development organizations in Canada that are working hard to get assistance to the most vulnerable people around the world are coming from some kind of a faith-informed humanitarian motivation. These are Christian organizations like World Vision or Foodgrains Bank and Muslim organizations like Islamic Relief. For many people, though certainly not for all, a commitment to a sense of the image of God being in all of us is what leads to a passion for development assistance.

I want to recognize the role of people who come from a broad range of philosophical backgrounds who are involved in international development and the important work they are doing.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have been waiting for this day for more than a year. We are finally debating a bill that should have been introduced a long time ago. Last year, I had the honour of sitting on the Special Committee on Afghanistan with my colleagues from different parties, some of whom are with me today. I was one of the vice-chairs.

It was at the meeting on February 7, 2022, already more than a year ago, that I had the honour of asking the witnesses one of my first questions. This is the first time I have done this, but I am going to quote myself, because I think it is important. This is what I said: “They said that the Criminal Code might need to be amended so that NGOs on the ground could operate in Afghanistan without fear of being accused of funding terrorism. In my opinion, this is a very important subject that we need to address. What are your thoughts on this...?”

I said that on February 7, 2022. Since then, I have asked that question every chance I get. I even introduced a unanimous consent motion in the House on February 22, 2022, to allow non-governmental organizations to do their work on the ground. That was over a year ago. The motion was defeated by the Liberals, and now we find ourselves debating this bill in March.

I put that question to the organizations themselves and to the various ministers who appeared before the committee. Surprisingly, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship all replied that they agreed with me. That was in meetings of the Special Committee on Afghanistan.

One year later, we can finally debate a topic that everyone agreed on over a year ago. Democracy is great, but sometimes it takes a while.

It will come as no surprise, then, that I was quite happy to hear that such a bill was finally being introduced and to hear the government announce that it was going to amend Canada's Criminal Code to allow humanitarian aid to flow again and to allow NGOs to do their work without fear of prosecution. I hope that is what happens.

This bill is further proof that the opposition can spur action in Quebec, Canada and around the world. After applying pressure to the government together with my friends from the Conservative Party and the NDP, I am delighted with this huge victory. The Bloc Québécois is always pleased to help. I believe that all my colleagues from the other parties are also pleased to help. That is the reason we ran for office in the first place.

Now, we must expedite the process because it has already taken too long. The Bloc Québécois can be counted on to fast-track this bill because the people of Afghanistan need help now. I say “now”, but they have needed our help since last winter when we were debating this issue. This is a useful bill that will help us make progress in the area of humanitarian aid.

The caveat is that we need to work quickly, but not too quickly. We have three hours to debate this bill, which will then be sent to committee. There are things we can discuss and on which we can agree in order to improve the bill. I will first touch on the more technical aspects. The government tabled Bill C‑41, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts, on March 9, 2023.

Currently the bill is at second reading. As it is currently written, the Criminal Code does not include any exemptions to facilitate the delivery of these essential activities in regions dealing with terrorist groups. As I mentioned earlier, this bill amends one of the Criminal Code's anti-terrorist financing offences to facilitate the delivery of much-needed international assistance, immigration activities, and other assistance in geographic areas controlled by terrorist groups. In other words, these amendments would create a new authorization scheme that would allow those that provide humanitarian or other critical assistance, to apply for an authorization that would shield them from the risk of criminal liability if the terms and conditions of the authorization are respected.

We have to understand that the Taliban, as the current de facto authority in Afghanistan, is likely to receive revenue from any payments needed to support humanitarian aid.

Under the Criminal Code, any Canadian or person in Canada making or authorizing such payments would risk contravening the Criminal Code's counter-terrorist financing provision. That is what we have now.

Despite the uncertainty, most organizations have continued to respond to crises around the world, but problems have grown exponentially since the Taliban, a listed terrorist entity, took control of Afghanistan in August 2021. In that regard, the scale of the humanitarian and economic crisis that the Afghan people are now facing cannot be overstated.

On paper, Bill C-41 rectifies this inability to make exceptions for organizations that are trying to deliver humanitarian aid on the ground. The bill is the proposed solution, and some aid groups support it.

However, what is wrong with this approach is that there are already many legal provisions that the government could strengthen rather than imposing a whole new set of legal hoops for humanitarian organizations to jump through. There is also the fact that humanitarian aid workers have said that the current amendments create more red tape for them, as my colleague said earlier.

For the sake of clarity, here is what is in this bill. Under this regime, the following people would have the power to grant an authorization to NGOs: the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, the Minister of Public Safety, and delegates with the power to grant authorizations. That is a lot of people.

These authorizations will shield applicants from criminal liability in the course of certain activities, including the delivery of humanitarian aid, when they would otherwise be at risk of violating the Criminal Code. It is really about time.

When deciding whether or not to grant an authorization, the Minister of Public Safety will examine applications referred by the Department of Foreign Affairs or the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and will take into account their assessment of the application.

In other words, the goal is to determine whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages in terms of the risk of financing terrorism. This is done through a system of information sharing between departments to conduct the security review that must be done prior to granting authorization. However, all this remains to be seen, because it does not mean that the authorization will be granted.

What happens if the authorization is not granted? Let us look at that together. Under this authorization regime, in the event of a negative response from the Government of Canada, the bill provides for the possibility of judicial review if authorization is not granted.

There is legal precedent in Canada that supports the assertion that because of the life-saving purpose of humanitarian aid, it cannot be considered criminal to provide such aid, even if a terrorist group may in some way benefit from it.

This does not mean that humanitarian organizations are shielded from anti-terrorism legislation. It means that they should not be presumed to be violating the Criminal Code simply because they operate in places like Afghanistan.

The problem is that Bill C-41 turns that presumption on its head. It uses an approach based on mistrust, one that requires humanitarian organizations to prove their abilities before they are allowed to respond to emergencies, and no one knows how long that process will take. One thing we do know, however, is that approval would involve at least two departments and up to nine security or regulatory agencies.

I cannot speak for my colleagues, but I myself have had numerous opportunities during my time in the House to see how slowly the Canadian government bureaucracy moves. Bill C‑41 provides for applications for authorization to be processed by the Government of Canada within a reasonable time. That does not necessarily instill much confidence.

Despite the positive advances in this bill, what worries me is the number of interventions required between departments and the impact that such a bill could have on humanitarian organizations. It is no secret that, when it comes to processing times, I get the impression that the federal government does not spend much time checking the clock.

The situation for the NGOs and above all the Afghan people, the men, women and children who are suffering, is deteriorating before our eyes. Time is running out.

When the time came to create this committee, a Conservative motion proposed that the Special Committee on Afghanistan be created. It was not going to be adopted because there was no consensus in the House. If the Conservative motion had been presented as worded, it would have been defeated.

The Bloc Québécois came up with a possible amendment to the proposal to create the Special Committee on Afghanistan, adding a requirement that the committee focus not only on the fall of Kabul, the federal government's failure to support the Afghan people and what happened before the Taliban took power, but also on what we could do now and in the near future.

We entered into a dialogue with our Conservative friends about this amendment and we managed to get everyone in the House to support it. Then the opposition parties voted for the motion to create the Special Committee on Afghanistan. It is important to highlight this, because the committee's mission is to find out what is being done now and how we are helping people who are experiencing suffering that we in the House will never experience. Things are horrible there. Women and parents are being forced to sell one of their daughters in order to feed their other children. These are the kinds of horrors we heard about in meetings of the Special Committee on Afghanistan. That is why we wanted to create it, to come up with recommendations and to help the Afghan people as quickly as possible.

We have known about this problem for over a year, but today the government comes along and tells me that it was complicated to draft. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Public Safety, the Minister of Immigration, everyone in the Liberal Party agreed that there is a problem and that we need to do something about it, but they said it takes time. The Minister of International Development also got involved, saying that we need to do it, but that it will take time, so we need to give them time. We are being told it is normal for this to take so much time.

There is a question I ask myself when I get up in the morning. As I often mention, I have a Post-it note on my bedside table that says, “Who do you work for?” When I open my eyes, that is the first thing I see. I work for Quebeckers and the people of Lac-Saint-Jean, but I also work for everyone who needs help around the world. It is part of my files, but I am also fundamentally human and I am a representative of the people. We have a duty and a responsibility toward people who are suffering.

Now the government is telling me that it was too complicated and that it is understandable that it took so much time. I will give an example. When the pandemic hit the entire country, I think the government acted fairly quickly to implement special aid programs. It only took the government two weeks to create the Canada emergency response benefit and subsidies for businesses when people were losing their jobs. Now, however, the government says it is understandable for this to take a year and a half, even though children are dying in Afghanistan, women are selling their children and Canada is unable to deliver humanitarian aid because of the Criminal Code. Come on.

I am rather appalled by that. I understand that I have plenty of Liberal colleagues who are acting in good faith, who want to help and who agree with us on this subject, but I think there is a problem somewhere in the machine. It is not right for the government to be able to create aid programs really quickly when people are losing their jobs in Canada but not when children are dying in Afghanistan. I think that is unfathomable and disgraceful.

I am going to end with that because I do not want to get too wound up, and this is still good news, after all. However, now that we have wasted so much time, we need to get Bill C‑41 in place. How likely is that that the bill is well written and we can all agree on the amendments coming from the humanitarian NGO community, all together and not in committee?

What I am asking is that the parties come to agreement through informal conversations before sitting in committee and that everyone agrees quickly. I am hoping that there will be no debate in committee and that the amendments that are agreed upon are voted on quickly. Let us not waste any more time; we have wasted far too much over the last year.

I will say it again. The first question I asked with respect to this issue was on February 7, 2022, in the Special Committee on Afghanistan. The motion received unanimous consent, so I tabled it on February 22, 2022. What day is it now? It is March and April is coming. There was snow in the Parc des Laurentides, but it is sunny here. It is spring. It should not have taken this long.

Let us make sure that from now on it moves as quickly as it can and that this bill is as well crafted as possible to allow our NGOs to do the work on the ground, to help women, men, children and the Afghan people through one of the worst humanitarian crises on the planet.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to recognize Farzana Elham Kochai, who was a member of Parliament in Afghanistan. I believe I pronounced it relatively right. She is a young woman with a very powerful voice who is now in Winnipeg. I had the opportunity to meet her at the local McDonald's restaurant on one of my Saturday visits.

When I look at the legislation we are debating today, I think we all have a responsibility to find ways to ensure that it reflects the interests of the people who are out there. I know I, for one, will be sharing my thoughts with Farzana and getting some direct feedback.

We can talk about why it took as long as it did, and so forth, another day, but we need to recognize that it is important legislation to pass for the people of Afghanistan. Could my colleague provide his comments on why it is important that we get that support?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is precisely because we are in contact with people who have been on the ground there for many years that we need to pass such legislation. Every day and every week, we meet people who tell us what they need, and we speak on their behalf. That is more or less what my colleague wanted to say as well. We need to go and get the information from those who are really experiencing the situation in order to use our parliamentary power to make legislative changes.

It is not such a bad idea to talk about why this took such a long time. Since the bill has not yet been passed, let us move it through the process as quickly as possible as of now. Humanitarian organizations and the people of Afghanistan are the ones asking us to do this quickly.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean for all that he does to help the people of Afghanistan. He spoke a lot about how long it took the Liberal government to introduce this bill.

I would like to give him more time to share his feelings and frustrations and I would like for him to talk about the consequences that he, other members and I have faced when dealing with the Liberal government in trying to help the Afghan people. Unfortunately, some Afghan citizens were killed because of these delays.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to commend the member for his efforts. He spoke French very well.

The hon. member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen on his French. I have a great deal of appreciation for him. I know that he has a direct connection to Afghanistan, because he served over there. We thank him for his service.

I thank him for the opportunity to say how frustrating this is and has been. He and I are part of a group of parliamentarians that also includes our friend from Edmonton Strathcona. The members of this group are advocating for former Afghan parliamentarians. We are working very hard to try and bring them here because we have a responsibility to these women. Unfortunately, we lost one of the women for whom we were advocating. I think that this has been very hard on the whole group. In fact, the Liberals are part of this group, which is a transpartisan group.

However, the situation is frustrating. Currently, the government's slowness is not only frustrating, but also something that I find incomprehensible. The government says it is feminist. It often wraps itself in human rights' superhero costumes. However, when it comes time to act in crises such as this, it always seems to drag its feet. It is frustrating, incomprehensible and unfortunate.

We have friends in every party in the House of Commons who work behind the scenes to help people half a world away living in fear. These people are frustrated, whether they are in the governing party or in the other opposition parties. This needs to change.

I think that the government has some serious soul-searching to do to understand what is going on. Unfortunately, we are talking about people's lives.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would speak French but I find when I get upset, it is difficult to find the words in French. I am upset today because what we have in front of us is the situation the government has put us in, being 18 to 19 months too late. We are now having to judge between accepting and supporting bad legislation or giving the organizations that are desperately trying to help the Afghan people no legislation at all.

I will be speaking about my challenges later on today, but I wonder how the member reconciles that. I am finding it very difficult to reconcile this dilemma, the dilemma that will actually take away the rights that humanitarian organizations are by international law entitled to.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I are in the same position and we feel the same way. This is a bill that we need to pass, but it is truly imperfect and is not acceptable to the very organizations that asked us to create this bill.

We need to find solutions. Earlier in my speech I talked about that a bit. I do not know whether my colleague had the opportunity to hear it. I think that the members from all the parties are mature enough to talk informally before sitting down in committee to agree on changes to the bill that we could adopt quickly. Instead of putting on a show in committee and deciding to debate this or that amendment, let us sit down. We are capable of going into a room in Parliament, all together, before the committee in order to decide which amendments we can agree on.

That way, when we go to committee, everything will go more quickly. We will adopt amendments rather quickly and we will do our work properly and in the best spirit possible to be able to help our friends who are awaiting this help in Afghanistan.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean for his speech. Every time he rises here in the House we see that humanitarian causes are very dear to him.

With respect to Afghanistan, we know that the needs are immense and that millions of people are affected.

My question may be a little redundant in light of the earlier question. Does this bill strike a good balance between sanctions on a terrorist state and the exceptional measures for humanitarian assistance? I understand that improvements need to be made. Is that tied to this aspect of the bill?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question. I think this bill was supposed to strike a balance, which is no easy task when it comes to any discussion on terrorist financing. I understand how difficult it can be for legislators to draft a a document that strikes this balance, and I think it has been achieved to some extent. Where we do see problems now has more to do with how this balance is being implemented. The government wants to move forward with authorizations and lots of red tape, when there are urgent needs right now. I do not think this is the best approach.

There is another problem with that balance, specifically that the burden of proof falls on the NGOs. It is the NGOs that have to prove that they are not malicious and they are not financing any terrorists. Take Doctors Without Borders for example. We all know that that organization's goal is to help people directly on the ground, not finance terrorists. Doctors Without Borders was one of the first organizations to denounce the wording of this bill.

I think we need to speak with representatives from Doctors Without Borders, Amnesty International and other NGOs that are working on the ground so we can reach an agreement as parliamentarians to come up with quick and effective solutions.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Edmonton Manning is rising on a point of order.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, this has nothing to do with the debate. The chamber is cold and I was wondering if the air conditioning can be turned down a little so we can continue.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will have someone check into that.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have to say I was a bit nervous there for a minute after the Conservatives made it so I was unable to give my remarks last week. I was worried that was going to happen again. I am quite happy they are just cold at the moment.

As always, it is my great delight to stand in this House and represent the people of Edmonton Strathcona. Today, we are talking about something that is very close to my heart and something that I have been working on for most of my career. While I am delighted to stand representing the people of Edmonton Strathcona, I am not delighted to be having this conversation at this moment in time.

In February 2021, six months before the fall of Kabul, I wrote to Mr. Garneau, the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time, and I explained to him what was going to happen in August of 2021 if the Canadian government did not take action. I raised that again during question period in May 2021 and spoke about how people in Afghanistan needed Canada to stand up.

We all know what happened in August 2021. We all know how we failed the people of Afghanistan in August 2021. We know the reasons for it. I am not going to get into that here. We failed them on immigration. We failed them on humanitarian aid. We failed the people of Afghanistan in so many different ways.

Today, we are talking about a bill that is supposed to fix that failure. Today, we are talking about Bill C-41, which is a humanitarian carve-out. Let me correct that; it is supposed to be a humanitarian carve-out for humanitarian organizations.

We are in this place right now debating a bill that took 18 months to come to fruition, while so many Afghans suffered and starved. The government took 18 months. What we have right now is not even what the humanitarian sector asked for. It is not even what we have been calling for the past 18 months.

I stood in this House and asked for a humanitarian carve-out for humanitarian organizations so that Canadians who wanted to help in Afghanistan could do that and so that Canadians who have decades of experience working with the people in Afghanistan could do that.

I raised that in the House on November 30, 2021. I asked if the minister, at the time, was going to act with the urgency required to make sure there was a humanitarian carve-out in place so that Canadian organizations could work in Afghanistan and could help people in Afghanistan who were suffering so much under the current regime.

Instead, what we have now is a bill that will limit the abilities of humanitarian organizations. Let us make this very clear: This is not just about Afghanistan. This is about all humanitarian contexts. What we decide with this legislation will have impacts in Gaza and Yemen, and it will have impacts in all kinds of humanitarian contexts. While we are looking at it within the scope of Afghanistan right now, it is not just about Afghanistan and every single person needs to understand that.

I was speaking to experts. I am sure many of us spoke to experts within the humanitarian sector. MSF recently put in a published response to Bill C-41. It said:

Criminalizing Canadian humanitarian agencies or their staff for working in territories controlled by terrorist groups would be contrary to existing international norms and laws, most notably the Geneva Conventions, and might even be unconstitutional. There is legal precedent in Canada supporting the claim that, owing to the life-saving purpose of humanitarian aid, it cannot be considered criminal to provide it, even when a terrorist group may accrue some benefit from that aid.

MSF works in some of the most horrendous circumstances in this world. It is saying that this legislation does not meet the needs that needs to be met. I have heard some interesting things.

I have spoken to the Minister of Public Safety, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of International Development. I have spoken to all these ministers and asked, “Who is responsible, and when is it coming?” I have also listened to all three ministers tell me that it is someone else's problem, that it is someone else's fault and not to worry, that someone else is dealing with it or that it is too complex for them to undertake.

I want to tell members what some of the other countries have done. The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade announced that:

Australia [would implement] the [UN Security Council's humanitarian] exemption immediately relying [upon] the Charter of the United Nations Act 1945. Accordingly, assistance or activities covered by [the Security Council's exemption]...do not constitute an offence under Australian sanctions laws.

The United Kingdom amended its regulations to indicate that its financing prohibition does not cover the delivery of humanitarian assistance or other activities that support basic human needs in Afghanistan. There is also the U.S. and the European Union. They all amended their legislation. In fact, with respect to the United Nations, on December 22, 2021, the UN Security Council decided through resolution 2615, the drafting of which was spearheaded by the United States, “that humanitarian assistance and other activities that support basic human needs in Afghanistan” do not violate the council's sanctions regime.

The council also specified:

[T]hat the processing and payment of funds, other financial assets or economic resources, and the provision of goods and services necessary to ensure the timely delivery of such assistance or to support such activities are permitted.

That happened on December 22, 2021. Therefore, countries around the world that are our allies who also believe in the rule of law, humanitarian assistance and humanitarian law were able to make this humanitarian carve-out. However, Canada took 18 months and has not provided a carve-out. Let us be very clear: This law is not a humanitarian carve-out. Why is this so important and pressing? Why have I brought this up in the House and written to the ministers time and time again? Why has every party in the House raised this issue?

My colleague from the Bloc just brought up recently how long he has been calling for this. The Special Committee on Afghanistan was calling for this. Why have we all been acting for this? It is because a record number of people in Afghanistan need our help.

Hunger does not wait. It is not waiting for us to have time or for it to be convenient for the rest of us. People are starving to death in Afghanistan. I have to say, Canada has spent billions of dollars, and we have lost the lives of Canadian soldiers on Afghanistan soil. We have a relationship with Afghanistan. We have an obligation to the people of Afghanistan.

They do not need our support when things are going well. The people of Afghanistan do not need us to step up when all is well. However, when six million people are at risk of severe malnourishment, tens of millions of people are food-insecure and cannot have enough food to eat, the economy has failed, there are drought conditions and climate change has made it impossible for the people of Afghanistan to feed themselves is when they need Canada to step up. That is when we need to do the work to help the people of Afghanistan.

Do not get me wrong, Madam Speaker: The Taliban is a horrendous terrorist organization by all definitions. What the members of the Taliban are doing to women and girls in that country right now is so repugnant and disgusting to me. However, we cannot stop helping people because of that. We still have to help people who are there. I would like to have every single schoolgirl be able to come to this country because if they cannot learn in their country, I would like Canada to do everything it can. I would like to say that an unlimited number of Afghans should be able to come here and study.

I know that I am very angry right now, but I will say one thing. I give speeches in my community all the time. I go and talk to students. It is a really important part of our role as parliamentarians to be in our communities.

I was talking to a grade 6 class about the importance of being a parliamentarian and my role as the foreign affairs critic. I talked about how one of the worst things for me was knowing that women and girls could not go to school in Afghanistan. Teaching women and girls fundamentally changes a country; it is the best thing we can do to deal with climate change, to teach women and girls all these reasons.

This beautiful girl in the front row put up her hand and told me that she was a refugee from Afghanistan, and she was in Canada studying and learning. It was such an incredible and beautiful thing to see.

I will come back to Bill C-41. One of the things that I think is very interesting about this is the way our humanitarian assistance has developed in this country. We have an Official Development Assistance Accountability Act in law. There is a law in our country, put in place in 2008. I was thrilled to be part of the civil society groups that were pressing for some of the legislation back then.

We have a law in place, and it says that Canada's humanitarian and development assistance would go to those most in need and that we would support those most in need. Not only is it law; it is Canadian values. My goodness, every Canadian wants to support people who are most in need and who most require our support. How can there be a better case for providing humanitarian support? How could that be possible?

Over the past eight months, close to 10,000 Canadians have joined the Aid for Afghanistan campaign, calling on the federal government to remove barriers to life-saving aid and assistance in Afghanistan. It is absolutely clear that Canadians support providing this humanitarian assistance. This is what they have been asking for.

The restrictions that Canada has in place have prevented Canadian organizations from doing that, from getting life-saving assistance to the most vulnerable and actually living up to our obligations under international law.

This is a country that has a feminist international assistance policy and is supposed to have a feminist foreign policy. From what I have been told, we have one; it is just not written down. I do not know if the government knows how policies work. This a country that is supposed to be a feminist leader and that is supposed to be leading the world, but we know that the impacts are disproportionately felt by women and girls. The impacts of the poverty in Afghanistan are being felt by women and girls. The human rights abuses that are happening in Afghanistan are disproportionately happening to women and girls.

All the rhetoric that we use with regard to humanitarian assistance impacts women and girls more, and yet this carve-out does not help us. I am going to say why it does not help us. First, and I have mentioned this already, it is a registry. It is not a humanitarian carve-out. It is not a carve-out in the same way that the UN, the U.S., Australia, the EU or the U.K had carve-outs. It is not that.

It was also developed despite the expertise in our country. The government did not liaise with, listen to or hear the sector. The sector was clear on what they needed. The experts in humanitarian aid, those who are experts at what they do, told the government what was needed and what they needed to see.

That is not what this legislation is. For the life of me I do not understand why the government would not want to listen to the experts in the field, who know what they are talking about.

Another thing that is wrong with this is that because of the way it is drafted, it puts humanitarian organizations at risk. It does that by actually interfering with their ability to be neutral and to be seen as humanitarian.

I was quite concerned when the current Minister of International Development was appointed. Humanitarian and development organizations spend all their time making sure that they are not associated with the military or defence, that they have neutrality and the ability to do their work on the ground. This bill would limit that. That is why neither the International Committee of the Red Cross nor MSF supports this bill.

We do not know what the bill would look like in other contexts. Right now, the bill has been developed because of what we are seeing in the Afghanistan situation. However, as I raised earlier, it does not talk about what happens if we are talking about other terrorist groups or listed entities. What would the bill mean in northern Nigeria? Can we not provide humanitarian aid there? What about Yemen and Burkina Faso? All these countries have similar challenges, and the legislation would apply to those groups as well. However, we have not heard from the government how it intends to deal with that.

We do not know if the bill is just for Canadian citizens working for Canadian organizations. What about a Canadian citizen working for another organization? What if there is a Canadian citizen working for the United Nations? Do they need to apply to be able to do that work? All of a sudden, the clarity is not there, and organizations that desperately want to get into Afghanistan and provide that help do not know what the bill would mean. They do not know what those expectations would be. They do not know what they would be legally allowed to do, and for an organization, that is terrifying. It is very frightening for any organization to think that it may be forced to stop doing the important work it does because it has broken regulations the government has put in place that the organization does not even understand and that have not been explained.

We do not know how the bill would work with smaller organizations or diaspora organizations. For a long time I have called on the government to increase the support for small and medium-sized organizations and for diaspora organizations. These organizations on the ground know the context and the communities. They have long relationships with these communities, but the legislation before us would make it much harder for them to be able to provide support.

Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan is a phenomenal organization in Alberta. Right now it is doing everything it can to get educational products to women and girls in Afghanistan. Despite not being able to receive funding and all the things that are happening right now, it is still trying so desperately to get education to women and girls in Afghanistan. As Canadians we should be proud of an organization like that, but the legislation would make it harder for Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan to do the work it needs to do.

Then, we look at the processing piece of the bill. We have a situation right now where Global Affairs Canada is not able to process things as quickly as it promised. This is not a slight in any way on the overburdened bureaucrats at Global Affairs Canada. It is not able to move things forward as fast as it would like because it is understaffed and overburdened; moreover, the clarity from the Liberal government has not been there.

We can think about the urgent situation we find ourselves in, and then we have a situation where urgency is required and we are asking Global Affairs Canada to add another layer of burden to those who cannot keep up with the current burden. This is not a system that will work. A carve-out would mean that all humanitarian organizations would be free to go forward. The legislation before us would mean that we have just kicked that can down the road again; once more, we are failing Afghanistan. Once more, the Canadian government has failed to live up to its obligations to Afghans.

I, for one, stand in this place. I am happy to work with anyone to make the bill better so that it meets the needs it has to meet for the people of Afghanistan. I am ready to stand in this place and work with anyone to make sure Afghans are no longer being failed by the Canadian government.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will ask a question of the hon. member.

She finished on a collaborative tone, as far as working together in this specific area goes. I do not believe any of us would disagree on what we need to do when it comes specifically to Afghanistan. However, my question is about the timing, the 18 months she and many other members referred to in terms of the bill.

How does she see this? Is this a miscalculation by the government or a delay in the calendar? Why has it taken 18 months to see the bill in the House of Commons?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I very much enjoy working with the hon. member for Edmonton Manning on many of these files.

Honestly, I want to think that it was a lack of speed. I want to think it was the thoroughness, but the resulting product does not make me think that this was the case.

In fact, I actually believe the government was hoping that this would go away and that Canadians would change the channel and stop paying attention. I think the government forgot how important the Afghan community is for all Canadians and how important it is that the humanitarian sector be able to continue to do that important work.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, how can the government have forgotten, how can it have been mistaken to the point that organizations such as Doctors Without Borders, Amnesty International and even the Red Cross, which are recognized around the world, must prove that they are legitimate before they can intervene in a country where millions of people and millions of women are suffering?

What is the explanation? I do not think it can be explained, but perhaps my colleague can say something about that.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think what we will hear is that there was a desire to balance the needs of security versus the needs of humanitarian organizations. It is my thought, though, that this balance is completely wrong in this case. That is proven out by what we saw from the United Nations Security Council and what we saw from the U.S., the EU, the U.K., Australia and other countries that were able to do that.

From my perspective, I feel like government members, in fact, were not open to listening to the sector. They were not open to listening to experts. I have already sent a list of my concerns to one of the ministers responsible, and I got back a comment that said, “Thanks for your advocacy.” I sent 15 questions and I got a thanks for my advocacy.

I do have to say that they are not listening to us. They are not listening to Afghans. They are not listening to experts. This should be an easy thing to do. There is support from every party. There is massive support across Canada from Canadians.

I know this is not really an answer for the member, but I do hope it gives some clarity.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I think the member is not recognizing some of the realities of the situation. We have seen dramatic increases in the number of refugees. When we factor in Ukraine, Afghanistan and other countries around the world, I believe it is fairly accurate that Canada is definitely, per capita, the best in the world on the refugee front. Even in hard numbers, not on per capita basis, we are doing exceptionally well.

Even the member from the opposition commented on the technicalities and the legal complications of the legislation. It is not like one can just bring a bunch of legal people to the table and say, poof, let us have the legislation. There is a process, yes, but the member is trying to give the impression that the government has not been active on the file. I would suggest that she just needs to look at the number of refugees and look at the increases in aid support, overall, that the Canadian government has been putting forward.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of things to say.

First of all, my colleague referred to Ukrainian refugees, but I am not sure if he perhaps failed to understand that the government does not list them as refugees, so they are not given the protection that refugees should have in our community.

The other thing he talked about is Afghan refugees. I have to tell him that I was in my office during the last constituency week talking to interpreters who have had their families and co-workers left behind by this government. I have talked to interpreters who supported our military, who supported our country, who have been left behind.

Yes, absolutely, I will say that we have been able to bring many people here from Afghanistan and from Ukraine, but I will not say that we have done a good job of it, that we have not left behind people to whom we had deep obligations. That is not anything to do with Bill C-41, which is an entirely different thing.

If we are not going to bring people out of their country so they can survive a genocidal terrorist regime in their own country, I do have to tell the member that humanitarian aid is the support we can give them.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is very difficult, because we did want this legislation. We wanted to see the carve-out for humanitarian help.

My question for the member is very specific. I am looking at the way the legislation is drafted and imagining that we vote for it to get to committee to think about how we might be able to improve it at committee. I am not sure we will be able to, so my question for her is this. Has she or her caucus been able to figure out if there are fixes to this change to the Criminal Code that will actually work for what we need?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is the ultimate challenge we are facing. People are dying, and this legislation would help some organizations get there and provide some assistance at some point.

It has taken 18 months to get this flawed piece of legislation, so we have put the international development and humanitarian sector in this terrible position of deciding whether to take flawed legislation that could have wide implications or vote against the legislation, knowing it is almost guaranteed that we will not see any other legislation. Do we take the bad or the worse? That is not a position any of us want to be in.

We have many recommendations we are going to be bringing forward. I moved a motion in this place to move the bill to committee so we could start that important work. Something needs to be done as quickly as possible. I hope the government will accept our amendments. We have already started drafting those amendments. Hopefully, we can make this bill into something that will help and do less harm.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I agree with many of the things the member has said about how the process this bill creates seems much more red tape-intensive than it needs to be. I look forward to seeing the amendments the NDP and others are going to propose.

I know there are sometimes limitations with respect to scope, so I have a specific question for the hon. member. Does she think the changes that we need to make to this bill are within the scope of the bill as it is currently written, or would we need a new piece of legislation to address the problems?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would say that this is very similar to the last question I just answered.

I am open to working with all parties to see if there is a way to improve this legislation. The scope will be something we will have to certainly press toward the very edges of. Again, it is a situation that the government could fix very quickly by bringing forward better legislation.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Edmonton Strathcona for her excellent speech. She is such a champion for human rights and international aid, and such an expert in it. It grieves me to think of how this could have been improved had the government listened to her all along.

I want to give her another opportunity to expand on the possible risks this legislation puts organizations and individuals at, because it is a registry and not a blanket carve-out for all organizations, and how that can affect the safety of people on the ground in Afghanistan.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, a fundamental part of humanitarian law is that humanitarian assistance is protected and not a target. This is part of international humanitarian law for a very important reason: Even in the worst human situations, we need to ensure that humanitarian aid can be delivered. Even with the worst state actors, we need to make sure humanitarian aid can be delivered.

When this legislation goes into place, the way it could weaponize humanitarian aid is so dangerous to the organizations that are already putting themselves in danger and the volunteers who are already putting themselves at risk.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

The title of Bill C-41 is a bland one, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts, but the impact on people's lives is exciting. This bill is about providing help and hope for those in desperate need. It highlights the Canadian tradition of caring for those in other countries.

As we are all aware, the situation in states under terrorist rule can leave innocent people in dire need. As a member of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, I have heard many tragic reports from those with first-hand experience of war and authoritarian regimes where basic human rights are not recognized. As someone who came to Canada from a war zone, I can empathize with those innocent people who did not choose the authoritarian regimes that they may be forced to accept.

Canadian values of helping those in need are rooted in a Christian humanitarian world view. We want to help where we are able, and Bill C-41 would allow us to do just that. Canada does not take unilateral military action against aggressive regimes. Our way is to work co-operatively with like-minded countries for the benefit of everyone, and while military force is sometimes necessary, building international consensus can take time. While that is happening, innocent people can suffer. This legislation attempts to address that suffering.

For example, Canada does not recognize the legality of the Taliban government in Afghanistan, as the Taliban is a terrorist entity. We have no relations with it. We do not support terrorists. However, the people of Afghanistan are in need and their terrorist government has no desire to help them. Drastic changes are needed in states like Afghanistan, but more war is not the answer. This bill is a sign that Canada recognizes that. As we deal with the reality of the situation in Afghanistan and elsewhere, this bill would allow us to assist the critical organizations involved in providing immediate aid to those people most in need.

Our role as parliamentarians should be to have a free and open debate about the specifics of Bill C-41, which includes conducting an adequate study in committee. However, we should not be delaying the passing of this bill. To achieve this goal, I would suggest that the justice committee launch a prestudy on this bill. By doing so, we would allow a thorough study of this act and provide interested Canadians the opportunity to debate and understand the specific details of what Bill C-41 has to offer.

Canadians do not want to endorse non-democratic states. However, the on-the-ground support offered through various activist-led operations should not be hindered due to the oppressive cultural and political climate entrenched in these states. We need to promote “Women, Life, Freedom” in these areas. Real changes have to start somewhere. This bill has the potential to provide a beacon of hope to those in dire need of humanitarian aid. There is also the potential to leave a distasteful legacy if we in this House fail to launch a swift and adequate study of this bill.

It is important to the Canadian people that we stick to our true democratic values. Because of this, upholding the legacy of honourable success stories should be of utmost importance. The Canadian war efforts from 2001 and 2014 in Afghanistan highlighted the tragic failure of democracy against a terrorist stronghold. Since the reoccupation by the Taliban in 2021, it has been made abundantly clear that our approach was not effective in creating lasting change.

Our Canadian troops heard first-hand the stories of Afghan citizens of repression under the Taliban. They not only fought for their Canada, but they also fought for the good, innocent people they grew to love in their day-to-day lives. The grim situations they observed first-hand in Afghanistan should be enough for us to see that this bill, which would allow aid groups to meet the needs of the desperate without fear of criminal charges, should be supported.

One of my staffers, whose mother served with our troops in Afghanistan, has recounted the stories her mother shared of her time serving there protecting the people from the Taliban. As she struggled to reintegrate into the Canadian way of life upon returning, she found herself facing deep grief and inner turmoil as the Taliban once again seized power 13 years after she had physically left the country.

My colleagues, that mother's experience is not hers alone.

Canadian troops put their lives on the line not only for their country, but to help Afghan women and children have hope of a better life. Years of conflict and violence led to a humanitarian crisis that shattered the innocence of these people. Many were left with the impression that dangerous and unethical acts are how one earns the love desired from one's parents. Their sense of purpose in life is determined by the warped world view of the Taliban.

No child should have to grow up in fear, but that is the situation in Afghanistan. While we cannot do anything at this point about the government that creates that fear, with Bill C-41 we can probably do something to help with the humanitarian crisis the Taliban has created. We owe it to our veterans and to our fallen soldiers to continue the effort toward a better humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. We cannot let their sacrifices be in vain.

Bill C-41 would allow us, as Canadians, to help the immediate situation on the ground while other work is being done behind the scenes to influence the meaningful societal shift required.

With that in mind, I believe approaching the situation from both the top down and the bottom up should be the most effective way of inciting the change we seek.

This bill provides the foundation that assists on-the-ground organizations to operate in terrorist-run states. However, we must tread carefully. Bill C-41 still needs work. The people of Afghanistan, and others, still need help. We must ensure this bill is swiftly examined and improvements adopted.

We might, for example, want to look at our duty to protect Canadians who become targets of oppression in states like Afghanistan. Citizens who courageously go to these states to provide humanitarian aid to the suffering victims of these states know the Government of Canada will support them in any way it can.

Many questions will arise as this bill progresses through this House and we should allow some time to address the concerns of our colleagues in a thorough but timely fashion. A prestudy by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights would assist in this goal.

To be quite honest, the real question is whether Liberal government members are serious about providing protection for aid organizations and will make it a priority or whether it will be consigned to the legislative back burner as not important. Human lives are at stake. The choice is theirs.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, to answer the member's question, the government has made it a priority, and that is the reason we have seen the co-operation and the push not only for humanitarian aid but also for ways in which we can assist those Afghan refugees once they can get out of Afghanistan to come to Canada. Canada has led the way on that particular issue.

Recognizing there are many different agencies and individuals in Canada today who are very supportive of us continuing to provide that aid, and that this legislation we are debating today is in fact going to assist in Canada having an ongoing and more stable—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I have to give the member the opportunity to answer and for other questions.

The hon. member for Edmonton Manning.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I guess the question was about the assurance that the agencies will continue to do the job. In cases like this, in crises like this, we need to be thinking ahead of time. That is what I think the government failed to do. We are talking about 18 months, 18 months where women, children and elders suffered a lot and the humanitarian aid did not get there to help them out and cope with these big challenges that they were going through.

The point is about the timing. I hope the government realizes that that was a mistake on its side.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague just mentioned a very long time has passed since Canada was called on, in particular by my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean, to take action on this issue in Afghanistan.

In addition to the long delays, Canada has not done what it was expected to do to resolve this situation in Afghanistan. I am not the only one to have talked about this. Afghan citizens in my riding in Shefford and even Afghan members who I have met seem to find that this situation has dragged on.

With respect to its obligations, Canada has not done everything it promised to do, especially for the interpreters. We see how action on this file did not unfortunately live up to expectations. Canada could have and must do more immediately.

We will be there, ready to collaborate.

I would like the member to comment on that.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, we have been hammered by hundreds of emails and questions from members of the Afghani community and from Canadian society asking why the government has dragged its feet in helping these people. Timing is so critical because whatever one loses during this time period, one will lose big and can never recover. That is what we are faced with.

I do agree with her assessment on this. I wish the government had acted earlier on this.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, people in Afghanistan are suffering now. It is appalling that the opposition parties have been calling on the government for over 18 months to address this situation and the government just now is acting on it by presenting a piece of flawed legislation.

Timing is so essential because Afghans need help now. In this piece of legislation there is a requirement of 180 days. Does the member agree that we should amend this to reduce that to 30 days or eliminate it entirely because the help needs to be delivered now?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think timing is at the essence of this. I also suggested that maybe a quick prestudy at the justice committee would probably improve the quality and conditions of this bill to be able to push it further. If this mechanism is the correct one, I think if it is passed through the committee and the final stage here, that would be critical and very important.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, at this point we are looking at legislation that we know is urgently needed but quite flawed. It need not have been so complicated to create a carve-out for charitable organizations.

Could the hon. member for Edmonton Manning comment on what they did in Australia, what they did in the U.K. and what our other allies in democratic efforts and in supporting the rights of women around the world did to ensure that their aid organizations could get in to assist?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe we could use some executive orders to speed this up and provide the necessary steps to get aid to the people who need it the most.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-41, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise in the House and speak to Bill C-41. I am going to be supporting this bill to get it to committee so it can undergo the vigorous review it needs to ease the concerns Canadians have. There are organizations that want to provide humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan in particular, but also to other areas of the world where terrorist organizations are in control, and they need to be able to do so without any repercussions here in Canada.

As we know, this bill would make some major changes to the Criminal Code to impact those individuals and organizations that are trying to help people who are the least privileged in the world and who are in crisis right now, especially in Afghanistan. There are over four million people who are starving. There is a lack of food and resources available to support the citizens. Those are largely women, girls and single-family units that do not have the ability to raise money.

In saying that, I want to first and foremost pay tribute to the brave women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces who served in the conflict in Afghanistan. Over 40,000 Canadians went to war in Afghanistan against al Qaeda and against the Taliban because of the terrorist attacks of 9/11. They served from 2001 to 2011, and the last of our troops came home in 2014.

We witnessed 165 Canadians die; 158 of them were brave soldiers of the Canadian Armed Forces and seven of them were civilians who were there assisting our forces, assisting the Government of Canada, working on diplomatic missions and working on things like humanitarian relief.

We have seen the consequences of that war for those who served. Thousands have come back with both physical and invisible injuries, whether it is PTSD and other operational stress injuries, or actual physical injuries, such as missing limbs. This still impacts our veteran community with a high level of suicide. Over 2,000 members were physically wounded or injured while serving in Afghanistan, and we have to continue to be with them.

I want to make the point that Canada committed itself to this war against terror in Afghanistan. It cost us in lives, we spilled blood and we spent a good portion of the treasury in fighting against the Taliban. It cost $18 billion just in military contributions, as well as in provincial reconstruction.

In addition to that, another $3.9 billion over two decades, from 2001 to 2021, was spent in humanitarian assistance building schools, building roads and infrastructure, and providing meals. We made sure Afghanistan converted from a poppy agricultural industry providing opium and other opioids on the illicit drug trafficking market around the world, to actual commodities it could trade legally in the global context that would provide a better, more sustainable way of life.

However, here we are today with an illegitimate government led by Taliban leaders who were complicit in the crimes against humanity that we witnessed before 2001 and that they are now undertaking today in Afghanistan. There are an illegitimate prime minister, Mullah Mohammad Hassan Akhund, and supreme leader, Mullah Haibatullah Akhunzada. These are people who helped orchestrate attacks against our own soldiers and our own civilians working in Afghanistan.

They have banned girls and women from going to school. They have taken most women out of the workforce so they are unable to provide for their families. They have reinstated the mandatory wearing of the burka, and other very misogynistic and chauvinistic policies that continue to trample on the rights of women, minority groups and minority religions.

We know that the Taliban today is actively hunting those Afghans who worked alongside our Canadian Armed Forces as interpreters, truck drivers and support workers in our military bases and forward operating locations throughout the Panjwai district where Canada served, and in Kandahar. Something we need to remember is that those we fought against are again back in control. We all saw on TV how it played out in 2021, as Afghans ran to planes to get out of the country, climbing aboard wherever they could. They were begging us to come back and begging Canada, the United States and others to come get those who wanted to go to our countries.

We knew this was coming as well. We knew that the U.S. had announced it was going to do its drawdown in 2021 when it announced it the previous year. Global Affairs Canada was raising this with the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, saying that we had to act to get our Canadians, as well as our friends and allies, out.

It was not until the actual collapse of Kabul started that we finally saw some action. The first to come out was our diplomat corps, on a half-empty airplane. It was a disappointment for all Canadians and an embarrassment for the government, that we could have saved more and decided not to.

Over 17,000 Afghans who served with Canada made application to come here. Over 11,000 of them have been approved, and over the past three years, about 9,500 have been able to make it to Canada. A lot of us, in our offices, continue to advocate and find ways out for those who served alongside our forces. We had some luck a couple of weeks ago in having another Afghan interpreter get to safety here in Canada, but the support in Afghanistan from the government is non-existent.

We know that these Criminal Code amendments are necessary to ensure that those out there wanting to do God's work in Afghanistan would not be turned into people who are considered complicit in terrorism. We want to make sure that organizations like World Vision, the Red Cross and Red Crescent are able to go out there and help those in need without having to worry about whether they are going to be charged back here in Canada.

However, we have to be diligent, and one thing we need to find out through committee study is how the government would continue to monitor the situation. How would the government decide whether organizations are being coerced or are having to pay big bribes to the Taliban and other terrorist organizations around the world and essentially redirect money that would help the terrorist activity, the human rights violations and the atrocities that we, all too often, are witnessing?

We have to be diligent and vigilant in making sure the government and the department are continuing to oversee this. As we look at Bill C-41 and start providing exemptions for different organizations and individuals, we have to go into this with eyes wide open. We have witnessed other terrorist organizations raising money here in Canada. Hamas, Hezbollah and ISIS all have been able to raise funds in the past to fund their terrorist activities around the world, so we have to be very diligent.

The House of Commons passed a motion unanimously in 2018 recognizing the IRGC, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran, as a terrorist entity. If the Government of Canada would finally list it as a terrorist organization, we could also make sure it could not raise money here in Canada now that it does actually have assets.

Though I support getting this bill to committee and making sure we provide relief to those who need it the most, the most disadvantaged people in the world, we also have to be extremely critical in our analysis at committee to ensure that those who want to have other nefarious means do not exploit this for their own terrorist ideologies.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is encouraging to see the all-party support, and it is important to recognize that the legislation goes beyond Afghanistan. We are talking about aid where terrorism is involved, and it is broader than just Afghanistan. Afghanistan amplifies the issue for us all, so we can better relate to it, but the federal government has a responsibility, and this is what I like about the legislation; it deals with the bigger issue. Afghanistan in itself is a gigantic issue, obviously, but this bill would deal with that in such a way that I think it would position Canada better, in some ways, than countries that have not brought forward such progressive legislation.

I wonder if my colleague would not agree that getting the bill to the committee stage, so that we could perhaps even get some of the questions he has put forward answered, would be a positive thing for all of us to see happen today.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, we definitely are responding to the situation in Afghanistan, but I also look at Mali, and I also look at what is happening down in Haiti right now. There are a number of other failed states where we see gangs and terrorist organizations in control. I worry about Lebanon and the increasing influence that Hezbollah has there as the country continues to try to recover after the massive blast in Beirut, with all the damage and lives lost.

That is why I do like some of the parts of Bill C-41 that would provide flexibility to the minister and the department to do reviews more than every five years. They could do them as they see fit. I would hope the government would listen to parliamentarians, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and the International Subcommittee on Human Rights. If they were to raise red flags, I hope the government would act upon them to ensure that, where we see dollars being diverted illegally into terrorist organizations or illegitimate governments, it can put a stop to any fundraising activities or dollars flowing to aid organizations to ensure we are not directly or indirectly financing terrorism.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for his speech.

My colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean said earlier that this bill is long overdue. We know full well that this has been going on for 18 months. What is the government waiting for? When will it help the men, women, and children who are being mercilessly killed in Afghanistan?

In my colleague's opinion, why did this take so long?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I must agree it is disappointing that it has been 18 months since the fall of Afghanistan into the hands of the Taliban. It has been nine months since the Special Committee on Afghanistan brought forward its recommendations to the House, recommending these amendments.

For whatever reason, the government has dragged its feet. “Dither and delay” is the trademark of the Liberal Party of Canada when it is in government, so it is unfortunate that we are where we are, but at least we are moving it forward. I hope the bill gets through committee in an expeditious fashion so we can get back to the basics of saving lives. I just hope we have not lost too many lives because of the ongoing indecision by the government.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, we have all become very aware of the conflict situation in Haiti, and we know that many NGOs and humanitarian aid organizations are doing very good work there. Would the legislation also provide organizations working in Haiti, for example, with protection as well?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, to my understanding, Haiti, right now, is not listed as a terrorist organization, so right now we can raise funds.

I know that one of the things talked about when President Biden was here with the Prime Minister was Canada's participating in a special mission to Haiti to bring and restore peace and security to the region. We need to do that for our aid workers who are there. Haiti is like Afghanistan, the second-poorest country in the world. If anyone needs help, it is the people of Haiti, and if anyone needs to go, it is the gangs that are right now running the government.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the legislation that was introduced by my colleague, the hon. Minister of Public Safety. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, I know our team needs to work closely to keep Canadians safe while also responding to the humanitarian crisis and bringing people to Canada.

In response to the situation in Afghanistan, Canada has acted to support the many women and girls, members of the 2SLGBTQI+ community, human rights defenders, journalists, and ethnic and religious minorities who face oppression, persecution and violence from the Taliban.

It is not an overstatement to suggest that coming to Canada is a second lease on life for some of the world's most vulnerable people.

We made it a priority to resettle the Afghan nationals who supported the efforts of Canada and its allies during the mission in Afghanistan, along with their families. We are deeply committed to our goal of bringing at least 40,000 Afghan nationals to Canada by the end of 2023. We are proud to say that this is one of the most substantial commitments of any country in the world, and we are well on our way to meeting it.

Afghanistan represents one of the largest and most difficult resettlement efforts in Canada's history. The challenges of this resettlement initiative are unlike any other we have faced, starting with the chaos that ensued as the Taliban closed in on Kabul and the bombing of innocent women and children who gathered at the airport to flee the country.

The international withdrawal of military and diplomatic missions left little to no capacity to support the special immigration measures we had created for Afghans in Afghanistan. There are significant challenges in conducting immigration activities and finalizing applications in Afghanistan. That is why Afghans need to travel outside Afghanistan to neighbouring countries before their applications can be finalized. Once in these other countries, what we refer to as third countries, immigration processing can be completed and travel onward to Canada can be arranged.

There are also significant challenges involved in supporting Afghan movement, both to neighbouring countries and onward to Canada. Our government has been doing everything within our control to tackle these challenges head on. To mitigate against some of the obstacles, we have been working with NGOs and other organizations in the region to support these activities. That said, we have not let the barriers that the Taliban have thrown up to the international community stand in our way. To date, nearly 30,000 Afghans have been successfully resettled here in Canada.

These people are Afghan nationals who collaborated on our mission in Afghanistan by working as interpreters, or in other roles, and their families, women and girls who are under the threat of renewed oppression and members of other ethnic and religious groups who are victims of persecution.

In Canada, these Afghan nationals will be able to feel safe after experiencing horrible trauma. I have to say that this is one of the most difficult tasks I have undertaken in my career, but also the most rewarding. As a parliamentarian and a Canadian, I am proud of what we have accomplished.

While there are many people in Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada and other departments working every day on this challenge, all members of Parliament could be proud of the role they play in supporting vulnerable Afghans and providing them with a new home. This can, in fact, be something that all Canadians can be proud of. Canada has stood with those who face oppression and persecution. We have worked to bring them here to provide them with a new home and support their transition to a better life in Canada.

I want to tell the House about one inspiring woman in particular. Her name is Maryam Masoomi. She grew up in Pakistan and Afghanistan, studying at a progressive school that championed education for women.

She worked in media and was the leader of an all-female music group called Sounds of Afghanistan in Kabul. Her songs about education, peace and women's empowerment put her life in danger when the Taliban seized control. If she had stayed in Afghanistan, Maryam would have faced a world where she was not permitted to study, work, sing or even leave the house without a male family member. As a member of the Hazara, an ethnic minority persecuted by the Taliban, and given her progressive education, she would have been the target of threats, abuse, forced marriage and possibly even execution.

She left her homeland, facing dangerous Taliban checkpoints, and she was able to escape with the help of the 30 Birds Foundation. Today, she hosts a radio show in Saskatoon called Kabul Jan, which features music from Afghanistan. She is able to once again perform music. She participated in a special day celebration in 2022. She is also a youth program facilitator at the Saskatoon Open Door Society, which helps other newcomers settle in and integrate into Canada.

Thousands of women like Maryam are given a second chance thanks to Canada's efforts. Canada has done a lot of good work and is still helping Afghans to come and settle here, but we are facing significant obstacles.

The language in the Criminal Code is very specific. As it is presently written, no one can make or authorize payments knowing that they may be used by, or benefit, the Taliban. To do so would risk contravening the Criminal Code's counterterrorism financing provision. As it is written, it is an effective tool for combatting terrorism, but it could impede the provision of much-needed humanitarian assistance and immigration services in a geographic region controlled by a terrorist group. This could involve anything from paying transportation costs, taxes, government charges or other fees.

Any Canadian or person in Canada making or authorizing such payments would risk contravening the Criminal Code's counterterrorism financing provision, given that these payments may be used by or could benefit the Taliban. As the Taliban controls the government, it is now benefiting from taxes, import tariffs and administrative fees. These fees are hard to avoid when supporting critical immigration processing and the movement of people out of Afghanistan.

The bill introduced by my colleague constitutes a reasonable and practical approach that keeps in place strong provisions to fight terrorism, while addressing one of the main obstacles to carrying out immigration activities within Afghanistan.

The proposed changes would facilitate the movement of vulnerable Afghans to a third country where it would be possible to continue the immigration process.

These changes would also give us the ability to respond to other similar situations that might arise, so that Canada's humanitarian response can be fully executed, no matter where in the world we find ourselves responding next. To do this, the legislation creates an authorization regime to facilitate the delivery of international assistance and immigration activities in geographic regions controlled by terrorist groups.

This authorization regime establishes a process whereby individuals and organizations, including Government of Canada departments, must submit an application in order to be authorized by the Minister of Public Safety to carry out specific activities. Accordingly, applicants will be protected from any criminal responsibility in the event that they carry out activities, including financial transactions, in countries or regions under terrorist regimes.

These efforts are aligned with the recommendation of the Special Committee on Afghanistan.

I would like to take, actually, a brief moment to thank all of my colleagues and all of the witnesses who contributed to the special committee work. These efforts led to important recommendations and the final report. More specifically, the report recommends that we “act immediately to ensure that registered Canadian organizations have the clarity and assurances needed–such as carve-outs or exemptions–to deliver humanitarian assistance and meet basic needs in Afghanistan without fear of prosecution for violating Canada’s anti-terrorism laws.”

The report also recommended, “Canada review the anti-terrorism financing provisions under the Criminal Code and urgently take any legislative steps necessary to ensure those provisions do not unduly restrict legitimate humanitarian action”.

Certain obstacles, such as Taliban exit requirements, access to Afghan passports, restrictions on the movement of women and girls, and entry and exit requirements in third countries, will continue to pose challenges. That said, the proposed legislation would provide an impactful tool to help Canada bring vulnerable Afghans to safety.

I hope that members of the House welcome this bill and work together to expedite it. We must come together so we can continue our efforts to help some of the world's most vulnerable people, such as women and girls who face oppression find a new life here in Canada, Afghans who helped us during our mission in the country, female judges who convicted Taliban fighters and need to flee the country, and former legislators and journalists who continued to stand up every day to bravely fight for the rights of women and girls.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. friend and members of the government have, in their remarks, tried to argue why this legislation is better than the status quo. I do not think there is much debate in the House that there is a massive problem in Afghanistan and that we need to make amendments that make the Criminal Code more nimble, so that is not really where the debate is.

The debate is around the specific provisions, the construction of this legislation and the concern expressed by all three opposition parties that this legislation would pile so much red tape on development organizations that it would be very challenging for them to use them and they will face significant delays. What we have heard from many is that we need to be holding the government accountable concerning the timelines they would live with under this legislation to ensure that they can actually deliver assistance in a timely manner, that these exemptions are reasonable and accessible and that they are available to all organizations doing this work, not just organizations that have more experience accessing government.

I wonder, in response to my question, recognizing that there is agreement on the principle of this legislation, if the parliamentary secretary could explain why the government chose the particular approach that it did. Why it is different from what our allies have put in place? Why it is so relatively bureaucratic and intensive? Would the government consider the kinds of amendments that all three opposition parties have talked about?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member raises a very good point. We did not expect the Taliban to overtake the government as quickly as it did, but I am very proud of the fact that since then, although we had a significant amount of obstacles facing us, we were able to bring almost 30,000 Afghans to Canada. I have had the pleasure, throughout the past year, to meet and talk to many of the women and girls who have now come to Canada.

I cannot anticipate how this debate will go, but I would urge members of the House, based on recommendations that were part of the special committee's report, to come to the table and pass this bill as quickly as possible.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, let us be clear. Essentially, Bill C-41 is about finding mechanisms to allow trustworthy organizations to go and help the local population.

A large part of the parliamentary secretary's speech was about the welcome that Afghans have received in Canada, but now we are talking about ways to help the locals. For example, under the current laws, the Red Cross cannot go into Afghanistan to help.

Does the parliamentary secretary really believe that Bill C-41 strikes the right kind of balance between sanctions against terrorists and exceptional humanitarian assistance measures?

Many organizations, as well as the opposition parties, have intervened to say that they are very concerned that the bill does not strike that balance.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for presenting some points of view that are indeed very important.

From the beginning, we brought in a number of measures to temporarily fulfill our commitment to help the Afghan people. However, these measures have their limits.

When we introduced Bill C-41, representatives from the Red Cross were right there beside us, talking about the additional work they would be able to do thanks to this bill.

Of course, we are in the House to debate this bill, and Parliament must pass it. We still want to improve it. Recommendations were made at the special committee, and this legislation needs to pass as quickly as possible.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, again, to the parliamentary secretary, we are not disputing the significance and importance of making changes in this regard. The issue is that it has been 18 months since the fall of Afghanistan, nine months since the Afghanistan committee made these recommendations and I think four or five months since the foreign affairs committee adopted a recommendation that mirrored those by the special committee on Afghanistan. Now we have a proposal that is potentially unwieldy.

We need to study at committee how to make it work better and to make it work more effectively. I am hearing from stakeholders that it is better than nothing. However, we need to figure out how to make sure that not only the timelines for passing this legislation will be addressed but also the timelines that charitable organizations will be needing to get support to the ground.

I wonder if the member could share a bit about what amendments the government would be willing to support, especially when it comes to ensuring that all organizations will be able to access these exemptions on reasonable terms, in a reasonable time frame and that especially small diaspora-led organizations will be able to access this process in a reasonable way so that we are able to get aid to the ground in Afghanistan as quickly as possible.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to be very clear. In 2021, no one anticipated the fall to occur that quickly. We also need to be very candid here in saying that the government made a huge commitment in actually bringing at least 40,000 Afghans to this country. We are very near 30,000.

As this bill is being proposed, and we are engaging with all partners and all NGOs, we certainly want and hope that the House will pass this bill as early as possible and will be as quick with the review process that my hon. colleague is alluding to.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the things that were deeply distressing to Canadians was that, when we were asked to step up to help the American war effort in Kandahar, we lost incredible young people in that fight and then it all collapsed. There were people who worked with Canadian NGOs and with the Canadian military who looked to us to get them out to safety and they were abandoned. It is not being partisan to say the government failed the people we left on the ground and the people who trusted that when they worked with Canadians that Canada would have their backs. Canada did not have their backs.

I dealt with people who were stuck over there. We dealt with midwives trying to get out and with interpreters trying to get out. People were calling our MP offices begging us, and the government failed them. I want to know what the government is willing to say to all those people who trusted that the Canadian maple leaf would stand for something in Afghanistan. When push came to shove, Canada was not there for them.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I said, the efforts Canada made certainly resonated in the international world, but we also know there were challenges and obstacles along the way. I represent a beautiful riding called Orléans, which has a very large Afghan community and also has active military persons and military veterans.

Canada stood tall. We committed to not 20,000 but at least 40,000 Afghans coming to Canada. With all the obstacles we faced, we have close to 30,000 Afghans here in Canada. This bill would continue to help support not only the humanitarian efforts but also the movement to a safe passage of those who are the most vulnerable. We want to bring them here to Canada.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think it is noteworthy that, regardless of how unexpected or expected events may have been, all of our allies have moved much more quickly than we have to introduce these exemptions. I want to ask the parliamentary secretary as well for her response to the Auditor General's report today. It shows that the government is failing to measure results when it comes to its so-called feminist international assistance policy. Twenty-four out of 26 policy indicators do not actually measure results. The government talks a lot about this, but it is not measuring its impact on the ground.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is quite interesting actually that the hon. member asked me that question in the House, when last Friday he and all of his party colleagues could not even stand up when the President of the United States actually made reference to what—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

There being no further members rising for debate, pursuant to order made earlier today, the motion for second reading of Bill C-41, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, is deemed adopted on division.

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)