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.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Thank you.

Is there anyone else? No.

I'm going back to Ms. Loten.

You mentioned keeping your balance when it comes to Bill C-41. I have met with many humanitarian organizations. Is there anything else that you want to add in reference to that bill, so that it gives peace of mind to those organizations that are willing to work and help the most vulnerable in Afghanistan?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I sometimes agree with my friend Ms. Rempel Garner, and I want to say that the commemorative plaque, in my opinion, is a nice gesture of recognition for the people who worked night and day and put all their heart and energy into trying to save as many people as possible. It has the support of the Bloc Québécois in that regard.

Under Bill C‑41, your department, or Citizenship and Immigration, will have responsibility for determining whether the proposed activity responds to a real and important need in an area reported to be under the control of a terrorist group.

Since you are the one who will decide whether or not authorizations will be given, I would like to know whether you have already established the criteria that will be used to determine whether the objectives have been achieved.

I would ask that Ms. Loten answer, given her in‑depth knowledge of Bill C‑41.

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

Thank you for that detailed answer.

I would like to come back to what we are feeling as a result of some of the decisions being made by this current terrorist regime, in terms of our Canadian values and especially the treatment of young women and girls. We believe the way women are treated by the Taliban is inconceivable and completely unacceptable.

I would like to know how Global Affairs Canada is reacting to the restrictions imposed by local authorities concerning women's involvement in humanitarian aid. We were talking earlier about Bill C‑41 and we know now that there are restrictions.

I would like to hear your comments on this subject, if you would like to share them.

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

If you think it is a good idea, that means it was missing when the crisis happened. We should have had this kind of emergency mechanism. We have learned the lesson and it is going to be created. That is why the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship has decided to go forward with this proposal.

Let's talk about Bill C‑41 now, the Bloc Québécois' other cause. This is extremely important to us. We are trying to work with all parties to have it passed as quickly as possible. We want us to agree not to debate the amendments. You were there when I explained this earlier.

I imagine you have examined the bill. For the information of the public, what assurance do you have that this bill will not allow terrorist groups to have access to funding? After combing through the report of the Special Committee on Afghanistan, do you feel there are enough firewalls? Will those firewalls not be a kind of obstacle to NGOs getting speedy authorization to do their work on the ground?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Ahuntsic-Cartierville, QC]

I've had many conversations with my counterparts, particularly my German counterpart, on finding ways to help the schooling of girls and impose conditions on our aid. We're also working with the EU on a better-coordinated approach when it comes to humanitarian assistance. That's supported, obviously, by Minister Sajjan.

Right now, at the end of the day, the best way for Canada to provide help right now is through Bill C-41. At the same time, the best way is making sure we work with the UN. Nobody has asked me a question on this, and I'm surprised: What is shocking about humanitarian aid in Afghanistan is the fact that women who are part of international NGOs cannot work there. We have pushed back heavily on this and will continue to do so—

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Ahuntsic-Cartierville, QC]

We have been able to provide a lot of humanitarian aid. As I said a little earlier, it totals about $150 million.

However, the challenge facing Canada was somewhat unique, given the provisions of the Criminal Code that prevented us from funding any terrorist organization whatsoever, both directly and especially indirectly, and in this case the Taliban. That meant that any humanitarian organization that paid rent, taxes or anything else in an area under their jurisdiction, thereby indirectly supporting the government in place, violated the Criminal Code. That is why all our humanitarian aid was sent to the UN or the Red Cross.

Now, the objective of Bill C‑41 is to go further and help organizations that have a strong presence on the ground, like the one Ms. Kwan and Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe mentioned, Doctors Without Borders.

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

Okay.

I would now like to come back to my initial questions.

You talked about organizations that have voiced criticisms of Bill C‑41. As I mentioned, the departments have a tendency to work in isolation. Interdepartmental relations are sometimes difficult. I have only been here for four years, but I can still observe that—

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

I have spoken to Doctors Without Borders, which made a statement quickly after learning the details of Bill C‑41.

The organization is arguing in favour of a humanitarian exemption in the Criminal Code, to eliminate any risk of their staff or the organization being charged with a criminal offence. However, that organization believes that the changes to the Criminal Code do not eliminate that uncertainty. I would point out that it really is quite a credible organization.

I understand that the committee wants to do things quickly, but I want to be sure it is not wasting its time. The bill absolutely has to be passed as quickly as possible. As well, I want to be sure that all parties agree on amendments on which there will be no debate.

Can we count on the government's cooperation so we can agree on these amendments as quickly as possible, with no debate?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Ahuntsic-Cartierville, QC]

Thank you for your question.

It essentially comes back to the question my colleague asked me about how we can strike a balance. The goal was to continue taking an extremely strict approach, to combat any form of terrorist organization funding, while ensuring we were able to support organizations doing development aid work.

At present, our objective is to bring Bill C‑41 forward in order for it to become law. I will also take this opportunity to thank everyone, because it seems that it has been introduced in the House of Commons. As well, the House has just adopted a unanimous motion, and that is good news.

My colleagues, the Minister of International Development and the Minister of Public Safety, will ensure that these organizations are given authorizations. We are prepared to hear comments from the organizations so that we can ensure, for example, that the authorization is continued. In other words, we have to make sure there isn't too much red tape.

I understand your concern, Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe, and, in fact, I share it. When the bureaucracy is too complicated, decisions sometimes can't be made quickly. I will be happy to hear your recommendations and the recommendations of the international organizations.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for being here today, Minister. I know you have a full schedule, given the visit of the President of the United States and other matters. Your being here is very important to us.

I am going to talk a lot about Bill C‑41, since the subject it deals with was my particular cause on the Special Committee on Afghanistan. All of the ministers who testified there agreed with me. In fact, you also testified publicly that the Criminal Code provisions limited Canadian humanitarian aid in Afghanistan.

One year ago, almost to the day, I introduced a motion in the House calling for unanimous consent, but the motion was rejected by the government, even though all the ministers were in favour of it when they appeared before the committee.

Non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, will have to obtain a recommendation from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and, in some cases, from the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, in addition to receiving authorization from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. Bill C‑41 means that three departments are involved when it comes to the work done by NGOs.

Do you not think that it might take a long time for NGOs to get the necessary authorizations? If so, about how much time do you think it would take?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

You mentioned Bill C-41, which was recently introduced by the government and supported by all of us here. This legislation would alter some of the terrorism provisions that have blocked Canadian humanitarian agencies and people from going to help people in Afghanistan.

Could you please comment on why this legislation is required to address the challenges we are facing in getting aid to Afghanistan?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Ahuntsic-Cartierville, QC]

Thanks to you and your colleague for this important question.

Listen, to say the situation of women and girls in Afghanistan is dire is an understatement. I know all of you have been preoccupied with this. You've raised this situation, and it's been a top priority. Meanwhile, there have been so many crises in the world that we need to continue to shed light on what's going on in Afghanistan. If we don't continue to inform the Canadian public about this, we will not be able to make sure that people outside Afghanistan are aware of what's going on.

When I was at the UN in New York with Secretary-General Guterres recently, we talked about it. We invested nearly $150 million to support women and girls in Afghanistan. Our colleague, Minister Sajjan, has been laser-focused on this. At the same time, we need to make sure we continue to help the organizations providing that help.

Because of our legislation and the Criminal Code dispositions, we've been working, as of now, through the UN and the Red Cross. We think that with Bill C-41 going through the House quickly—thank you all for your support on that—we can work with more organizations that may have even greater support on the ground in getting help to women and girls.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives share the desire to move forward discussion of this bill quickly. Therefore, I seek unanimous consent for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, in relation to the motion adopted earlier today regarding the second reading motion of Bill C-41 , an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts, Monday, March 27, be the day designated for the debate.

Foreign Affairs

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Yukon for his excellent question and his hard work. We introduced Bill C‑41 to enable Canadian humanitarian organizations to provide vital aid to the Afghan people, while maintaining our strong anti-terrorism laws.

This is in addition to the $156 million we have allocated to international organizations since August 2021. I hope that my colleagues across the way will support the quick passage of Bill C‑41 and support quick aid for the Afghan people.

Historic Places of Canada Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and address a packed House this afternoon. The government often calls its legislation “historic” and often it is not historic. However, in a very formal sense this is a historic piece of legislation insofar as it establishes rules around national historic sites.

Just as a preface, though, to the points I would like to make about this legislation, I imagine that much has been said by Conservatives about the issue of gatekeepers, about how the government's great fondness for red tape, for regulations, for gatekeepers, is making it harder for people to go about their business.

What is a gatekeeper? A gatekeeper is a regulator, an authority of some kind that prevents people from being able to go about their business or to do things that they should reasonably be able to do. Maybe the gatekeeper allows them to get through the gate eventually but imposes additional conditions or challenges that prevent that individual from going forward in a sufficiently timely way.

I think many Canadians look at various aspects of their lives and at the way government is operating, and they see way too much gatekeeping. They see way too much red tape. Modern life, because of the bureaucratization of various things, has just become excessively complicated and frustrating for people who are trying to proceed with normal life and do things that, in times past, were not over-regulated.

Conservatives are putting forward an agenda aimed at reducing red tape, at making life easier for Canadians and at allowing development to proceed without undue barriers. We made a number of genuinely historic announcements in the past week about initiatives that a Conservative government would implement, aimed at removing gatekeepers. One of those announcements was around housing. We have said that there was too much gatekeeping, too much Nimbyism, happening at the municipal level that prevents housing from getting built. When there are all sorts of little barriers that accumulate into large barriers, we see a shortage of new housing, which in turn makes housing less affordable for Canadians.

Our leader has announced strong measures that are going to require municipalities to get that gatekeeping, that red tape, out of the way. We have also announced a new measure around credentials. For over 50 years, people with trade certifications have been able to work in other parts of the country. However, people with certain professional distinctions are not able, if working virtually for instance, to easily provide that professional support across the country.

These are some instances of gatekeeping we have committed to addressing, and that, I think, need to be addressed urgently. They are a part of this whole constellation of red tape the government is piling on Canadians. This is the reality about how the government approaches things and how we approach things.

That brings us to the discussion of Bill C-23. I welcome the applause from across the way from the member for Winnipeg North. I mentioned this before, but he recently referred to me as a “mischievous little guy”. I am very proud of that, actually. I know that if the member for Winnipeg North has considered me to be mischievous, then I have had a good day. I will do my best to keep it up.

When it comes to Bill C-23, the government is saying a number of things about the designation of historic places and sites. On the face of it they seem reasonable, saying that the government should be able to designate certain places, persons and events as having historical significance for the country. It wants to have the designation of those places with plaques erected to celebrate those places, perhaps. It wants to be consulting widely, including consulting indigenous Canadians on those designations, and thus regulate the use of those places in a way that accords with their historic status.

On the face of it, at least for the second reading vote where we vote on the principle, there is some logic in saying that, yes, there can be a framework for the designation of certain sites, recognizing their historic significance. However, the concern is that we have a government that has such a tendency to use every possible pretext for imposing additional red tape, for making it harder to proceed with development project. It is a government that talks a good talk sometimes about the housing affordability challenges but in practice has done nothing to actually get housing built, a government that is fundamentally comfortable with red tape, gatekeepers and barriers preventing people from going about their normal lives. When that is the reality of what this government is all about, then people are understandably looking at Bill C-23 and asking what tools it would provide to the government for additional gatekeeping and additional restrictions on development.

When the power is vested in the hands of the minister and the minister would be able to make these designations, which would automatically impact the use of a place, and areas around it, by the way, that could create significant problems if that power is used in a way that is unreasonable. If the government is making these kinds of designations, and if the effect of making those designations is that development projects in and around the area are not able to move forward and the existing use of a particular land or particular place is no longer allowed, and if these designations are made in a way that does not reflect proper engagement or consultation with local people in the area, that would be a significant problem.

We can look at the tool that this legislation would provide to the minister to make designations and to use those designations in a variety of ways and, frankly, I would say that it is consistent with a pattern we are seeing from this government in terms of legislation. We are seeing legislation with less and less practical detail. Rather, we are seeing a lot of legislation that enables the government to do something later on.

Right beside Bill C-23, we had Bill C-22, a bill that would provide a benefit for Canadians living with disabilities. In effect, the bill would empower the government to create aspects of that benefit but not prescribe the nature of that benefit in legislation. We had Bill C-41, a bill that would empower the government to make certain exceptions in the Anti-terrorism Act, but it did not provide specificity around places where it would apply and many other aspects of how those exceptions would function. Thus, we have this pattern with the government of taking on new powers for itself through legislation, without seeing the specifics in the bill.

The kind of rhetorical approach the government brings to these debates is this: “Just trust us. We mean well. We are going to make sure that, when we are designating these places, it is going to be in accordance with what makes sense. We are reasonable people, for goodness' sake.”

However, the problem is that Canadians do not see the government as reasonable. They do not see the government as trustworthy. What we have actually seen, particularly from the Minister of Environment, and I think from the government in general, is a lack of recognition of the important role that jobs, opportunity and development play in our country, and the need to remove gatekeepers and red tape. We have not seen from the government a proper appreciation of that, and the effect, I think, has been very negative for this country.

I want to now speak on the issues of indigenous consultation that are in the bill. The legislation—