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.

Justice and Human Rights

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

Madam Speaker, I move that the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented to the House on Monday, June 5, 2023, be concurred in.

It is a pleasure for me to rise to be able to speak to this important committee report, which deals with the House's ongoing condemnation of the Taliban for its horrific violence against the Afghan people. While I am moving this concurrence motion, I want to say that I am going to be sharing my time with the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. I am very much looking forward to his comments, as he is someone who has served this country in uniform.

So many Canadians served in uniform in Afghanistan: 158 Canadians gave their lives, and more than 40,000 members of the Canadian Armed Forces served. The blood, treasure and time Canada invested in Afghanistan has established a special bond and commitment that we have with that country. It is felt particularly deeply by those who served, but it is felt in some sense by all of us who have seen the sacrifices and known people who have participated in those sacrifices.

This House has rightly just passed Bill C-41, a bill that will enable development assistance to get into Afghanistan and create an authorization regime whereby that can happen. I think passing that bill was the right decision to create that framework whereby this development assistance can be delivered. However, at the same time, we should be clear in our denunciation of any normalization of the Taliban or any recognition of legitimacy of its control over Afghanistan, and we should be firm and clear in our commitment to the fact that the Afghan people deserve freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. This is the birthright of all people. Canada has been particularly engaged with, and it has sacrificed for, the people of Afghanistan. We need to hold on to, and be steadfast in committing to, the principle that Afghans, in particular, deserve the protection of these fundamental rights. Therefore, we reject any kind of normalization or recognition of the Taliban, and we believe that it is important to engage with pro-democracy opposition groups, with the goal of restoring freedom, democracy and fundamental human rights to the people of Afghanistan.

The motion that Conservatives brought to the committee and that was unanimously adopted by the committee says:

That the committee report to the House that it firmly denounces the Taliban and rejects any recognition or legitimization of their control over Afghan territory. In particular, the committee denounces the Taliban system of gender discrimination, systemic violence targeting minority communities, reprisals against former members of the Afghan National Security and Defence Forces, attacks on freedom of the press, and other violations of fundamental human rights. The committee believes that the Taliban must remain a listed terrorist organization.

Parenthetically, I want to mention to the House that there are a number of cases of terrorist listings that the government has been behind on. We are at about the five-year anniversary of the House adopting my motion calling on the government to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization. At the time, the government actually voted for that motion. That was five years ago; the government said it was being studied and considered, but it still has not listed the IRGC as a terrorist organization, in spite of the escalation in horrific violence from the Iranian regime.

Conservatives have also called for the listing of the Wagner Group as a terrorist organization. There was a unanimous consent motion in the House a number of months ago. It has not been five years, as it has been with the IRGC, but it has still been a number of months. The Wagner Group is involved in the genocidal invasion of Ukraine by the Putin regime. It is also active in parts of Africa. It has been active in Syria, using horrifically violent tactics with complete disregard for civilian life and acting as an agent of the Putin regime's foreign policy.

We have called for the listing of the IRGC and the Wagner Group, and the House has called for the listing of the IRGC and the Wagner Group. These are two terrorist groups that have not been listed as terrorist entities under the Criminal Code. The Taliban is listed, and, through this motion, we are highlighting the importance of the Taliban remaining listed.

When we list an organization under the Criminal Code, it is not merely symbolic; of course, it is very significant. It is a way of most clearly denouncing these groups and shutting down any possibility for them to operate in Canada. It means that, when an organization is a terrorist group, it cannot recruit, be present or fundraise here. In the absence of a terrorist listing, groups have more room to manoeuvre. This is why we think it is important to shut down these groups in Canada.

I will return now to talk specifically about the Taliban and Afghanistan. After the September 11 attacks in the United States, there was a global coalition that came together recognizing that Afghanistan had become a haven from which terrorist attacks could be organized, as well as that the Afghan people were victims of horrific, ongoing violence.

We could detail those violations of human rights then and now. We have seen the horrific targeting of ethnic and religious minorities, such as Christians and the Shia Muslim community. The Hazara community has faced multiple ongoing genocides, as have the Sikh and Hindu communities in Afghanistan, which I and other members have advocated for. There has also been targeting of other minorities and all Afghans, particularly in terms of the situation of women in Afghanistan. I think it is quite correct to say that there is a system of “gender apartheid” in place in Afghanistan, and that is part of the system of human rights violations that we are seeing.

The motion highlights the system of gender apartheid, as well as the violence against minorities, attacks on freedom of the press, the targeting of those who have been involved in Afghan national security and defence forces and those who were involved in supporting Canada. They are all victims of Taliban violence. Many of these groups were victims of Taliban violence during the initial period of Taliban control of Afghanistan, and it is with this in mind, as well as the threats to our own security, that Canada stepped up and joined our allies in fighting to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban and support the Afghan people in realizing their desire for freedom, democracy, human rights and rule of law. Many Canadians participated heroically in that effort.

I believe that the pullout from Afghanistan was a big mistake. It would have been better for western troops to be able to continue to play a supportive role as Afghans were heroically fighting the Taliban. The pullout was poorly managed and poorly executed, and it was really done in a way that gave the Taliban the greatest opportunity to be able to take over the country. The sad reality is that the Taliban has taken over Afghanistan. However, I think it is crucial for the House, for us here and for the Canadian people to remain engaged with events in Afghanistan. We must honour the sacrifices that have been made and the ongoing desire of the Afghan people to have change in their country.

There are many Afghan civil society groups, opposition groups, pro-democracy groups and diaspora groups in Canada that are working to envision and to plan for a brighter future for Afghanistan. The foreign affairs committee recently heard testimony from a representative of the National Resistance Front, who said that the Taliban rule in Afghanistan is clearly not working. It is causing all sorts of problems, including a humanitarian crisis, and, in his view, it is realistic to hope for a collapse of the Taliban administration that would open the door, again, for a new alternative Afghan government that aligns more with the hopes and values of the people of that country, which is what we would hope for here in Canada.

We should be continuing to engage, to support the opposition and to tighten sanctions against the Taliban oppressors of the Afghan people. It is not a lost cause; far from it. There are many reasons to hope that a brighter future is ahead, but Afghanistan's friends around the world must continue to be engaged in that hope. That means firmly holding the line against the Taliban, preserving its terrorist listing and looking for opportunity, if anything, to tighten the sanctions that apply to the Taliban. That is our position, and I hope this is a position that is shared by the House.

Finally, on immigration measures, Canada had and continues to have an obligation to support those who stood with Canada and fought with Canada, as well as the most vulnerable minority communities, and to support their ability to make application to come to Canada. Sadly, the government was far behind on making that happen. We had been calling for measures in the lead-up to the fall of Kabul. In fact, on the day Kabul fell, the Prime Minister should have been at his desk; instead, he was at the Governor General's, calling an election.

It is a shame that the government was not more focused on responding to events in Afghanistan. Instead, it was making calculations about its own political future. Conservatives believe that this whole House should stand with the people of Afghanistan and seek that brighter democratic future.

Criminal Code

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-41.

The House resumed from June 9 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 third time and passed.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise and speak on Bill C-41. First, I want to begin by thanking all of my colleagues from all parties who have been working hard at this, particularly my colleague from Oakville North—Burlington, who has really made this, in many ways, an important part of all of the work that she has done in Parliament.

I think we should be very proud that we are at this point. One of the first things that was said to me, when I got elected, by an NGO that is doing work in Afghanistan right now is that we need to find a way to unlock this problem for the people of Afghanistan, for women and girls and for the organizations that are trying their best to work under extremely difficult circumstances.

Canadian NGOs have been at the front line of many of the most complicated challenges, the most complicated problems and the most difficult situations and circumstances in Afghanistan. They have been the ones that have been prepared to go to places where many other organizations have not wanted to go. They have been the ones that have been trying to support work in the most complex of circumstances.

Our ability to flow funds, our ability for organizations to do work in those areas and our ability for NGOs to be able to do the work that is required of them is really a matter of life and death. We have heard this throughout this debate. We have heard this throughout all of the speeches that at the forefront of our thinking, the forefront of our concern has to be the most vulnerable in Afghanistan and in other countries where this will apply but, in particular, we have been talking a lot about Afghanistan.

Two-thirds of the country now needs foreign aid to develop and to survive. People have literally had to make life-or-death decisions about whether they keep their children or sell them in order to be able to feed their families. The question of education is one that people would love to be able to even think about, but they are too busy trying to figure out if they are going to be able to eat.

We are at a place now where Bill C-41 finally does what so many have been calling for for so long. We have heard different points of view on whether this is the best route or the perfect route.

As we have learned, there is no perfect bill, but we are in a place now where we have the opportunity, as a Parliament, to tell the world that Canada is not only going to be there, that we are not only going to continue the work that we have historically done, but we are now going to make it possible for these NGOs to do the work that, in many ways, was made impossible not by design but by circumstance.

The fact that the Taliban took the decision to enforce legislation governing taxation of NGOs put so many people at risk of criminal liability. What this meant was that organization upon organization had to make the difficult decision of how they were going to engage, whether they were going to take the risks that involved.

This has led to an unprecedented economic humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. We are talking about 20 million people at risk.

Being able to pass this bill, making sure that we come together to get this over the finish line, to send a clear message that Canadian NGOs will be able to do the important work that they need to do, is something that I think we should all be proud of and that we should all do together.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this comment goes back to what I was saying before. As much as I think all of us in this place want to get aid to the people of Afghanistan as fast as possible, and I honestly believe that all of us in this place want that, the difficulty of being a lawmaker is that we have to look at the long-term implications of the laws we put forward. What happens if this means there are women and girls in other countries who do not get the support they need because we put legislation in place and because another government chooses to weaponize it? It is a real concern.

I appreciate the work the member has done in Afghanistan. I want to give a huge shout-out to an organization, Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan, which continues to do everything it can to help women and girls in Afghanistan at a time of great personal risk. One thing we should all continue to think about as we think about Bill C-41 is that the organizations that represent Canada around the world, the CSOs and NGOs, the organizations doing this important work, are heroes. They really do need to be acknowledged in this place.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we hear from the Liberals that they think they are back. I was not a member of Parliament or a politician in 2015 when the Prime Minister stood up and said that Canada was back. He tapped his chest and did that little thing he does when he is trying to make people think he really means it.

We all thought he did. The Prime Minister said all of the right words, all the right things that we wanted to hear. He said that Canada was back. We were going to be back on the world stage, and we were going to back with peacekeepers. He promised over 600 peacekeepers. He told us we were going to be back on international development and diplomacy, that we were going to be in those conversations.

No one is more disappointed that that never happened than I am. We went through the Harper decade. I was with civil society groups that were working on foreign affairs, international development and sustainable development in the Harper years. I saw what happened under the Harper decade.

We were so looking forward to a shining example of what this country could be. Unfortunately, eight years in, the Liberals have failed to deliver that for us. We have a 15% cut to international development assistance in the budget at a time when we know the world needs Canada to step up more than ever. We have 60 peacekeepers in the field when the government promised 600. We have failures on our diplomatic fronts. Every decision the Liberal government makes puts trade ahead of human rights, ahead of people and ahead of women, every single decision.

However, that is not why I am here today. I just could not let it pass, to have the government tell us parliamentarians that Canada is back. Canada is not back.

We are here to talk about Bill C-41. I will repeat what I just mentioned. I have worked in international development, foreign affairs and sustainable development around the world. I did it for my entire career prior to being a politician, in countries all throughout the world. I have represented organizations. I have done an awful lot of this work.

It is very important work. I sometimes think that, in the House of Commons, we forget that. We forget that our foreign policy is a stool. That stool requires trade, one hundred per cent, and it requires diplomatic relationships with other countries. It also requires development, and we know what happens when we step back from that piece of the stool.

What we are talking about today is basically a humanitarian carve-out so that we would be able to get urgent help to people in Afghanistan, except that is not what this bill is. That is not how legislation works. This would impact the international development and humanitarian sectors for decades because it is law. It is not contextual for the Afghan crisis. I will say, I have stood in the House time and time again demanding that the government do more for the people of Afghanistan. My heart breaks for the women and girls in Afghanistan who cannot go to school, who cannot leave their homes, whose lives are in danger.

The worst day I have had as a parliamentarian was finding out that one of their members of Parliament was murdered because we did not get her out fast enough. What is happening in Afghanistan is horrendous, and we need to do what we can, but this bill is going to have implications longer than just what is happening in Afghanistan. This would have implications around the world, and I do not think the people in the House are treating it with the severity that they need to.

It has been over two years since I asked the government to work with civil society, the non-profit sector and experts in the field to come up with a plan. It has been over two years. It was in May 2021. In February 2021, I wrote to then minister Garneau and said that this is what is going to happen. The U.S. has indicated that they are leaving, and this is what is going to happen. What is the plan?

There was never a plan put in place. There was never a plan to help those people who had worked so hard for Canadians. There was never a plan put in place to make sure that Canadian organizations doing the incredible work on the ground were able to work in Afghanistan.

For two years, we have been asking for this legislation. We asked for the government to work with the sector. I understand that none of us in this place are experts in everything. We cannot be. We have to depend on experts. We have to depend on experts to give us the best advice, but the government did not get the best advice.

The sector clearly asked for a humanitarian carve-out. What it got, in the first iteration of Bill C-41, was a messy, overly bureaucratic, overly complicated criminalization of humanitarian aid and international development. It got a bill that was created by three ministries. Do members know who led that? The Minister of Public Safety. I am sorry, but the Minister of Public Safety does not work in international development.

I do not know where the Minister of International Development was or why he was not part of these conversations. I do not know why we did not hear enough from Global Affairs Canada, but we did not. That is the reality. Therefore, we had a messy and broken piece of legislation come forward because the government refused to listen to the experts. The experts knew what was needed and what would make the lives of those in the sector easier so they could go into Afghanistan and provide life-saving aid and support to its people.

I want to take a moment here because I agree with my colleague from the Bloc, the member of Parliament for Lac-Saint-Jean. I worked very well with him. I also want to give a shout-out to the member for Oakville North—Burlington because she was basically given a terrible piece of legislation and told to shine it. When I say a terrible piece of legislation, I think members know exactly what I think of it.

She was told to make it better, so instead of bringing us a law that we could improve slightly, she brought us a dumpster fire that we then had to try to do what we could with, so I want to give her a shout-out. She worked very hard, very collaboratively and very well with me. I worked very well with the member for Lac-Saint-Jean. We all, every one of us, wanted to make sure this bill got help to people in Afghanistan as fast as it could.

When the Minister of Public Safety came to committee, he talked to us about balance. He said that we have to have a balance between protecting against terrorist and protecting international development groups. What I said to him then, and I will say to every member in the House right now, is that the balance is wrong. He got the balance wrong. The balance we have right now criminalizes international development organizations. It is only because we were able to get an NDP amendment through for a carve-out that humanitarian organizations are not in there.

The folks who work within public safety do great work, but they do not understand international human rights law. They do not understand international development rights. They just do not have that line. Therefore, we worked with other parties to try to get this fixed because one of the key things, and I think perhaps something that members do not understand, is ensuring that organizations can maintain their neutrality. It is vital. It is a cornerstone of humanitarian and international development work because we are asking these organizations to go into sectors, regions and areas that are under fire and are very dangerous.

We are asking them to go into some of the worst places on the planet, and often those places are rife with conflict. There are often groups working there who are bad actors, and terrorists who are doing terrible things, so the only way organizations can do that work is if they are seen as neutral, independent and impartial. This legislation makes organizations go to the government to get permission to work in certain areas, which takes away their ability to be impartial and independent.

I raised this when the Minister of International Development was first appointed. As members know, he is the former minister of defence. No offence to the minister, but that was a terrible idea because we spend our entire careers trying to ensure that folks understand we are not the military and we are not the government. We are independent. We are here to help. We are here to provide life-saving supports. That is what the sector does, what it tries to do.

When we put in a minister who is a former minister of defence, how does that look? It endangers the organizations working on the ground. It is an indication that the government does not understand, that it does not care and that it does not get it.

We did vote for the bill to go to committee, because, as I said, we all wanted to make sure that this aid got out to the people in Afghanistan who needed it. When the bill came to committee, we brought forward 12 amendments, and all of those amendments came from the sector. However, only six of those amendments were adopted.

As I mentioned, the key amendment for us was making sure that the humanitarian exemption was finally agreed to by the other parties. It was ruled out of scope, but we were able to bring it forward within the House. However, that was only one fix. That was only one of the things we wanted to ensure were fixed that the sector had asked us to fix.

One of the other things was a list. In this legislation, the government refuses to tell organizations which regions, which areas, they would need to ask for an exemption for, which puts all the onus on the organization. When we stand in this very sterile environment, it seems to make sense that an organization that is going to work in Sudan should ask if Sudan is one of the countries it would need an exemption for. However, that is not how international development works. Some of the Canadian organizations that I have worked with have 40-year relationships in some of the countries they work in. Change for Children in my riding has a 40-year relationship working in Nicaragua, and I can tell members that what is happening in Nicaragua has changed over 40 years.

We are not just asking organizations to check whether or not they can get into a country and do work. We are asking them to check, almost daily, to see if anything has changed, and the world changes. It is not the House of Commons where these organizations are working. They are working in mayhem. They are working in places that are in crisis. They are working in places that are in conflict. It is absurd to ask them to do that, to put that onus on them, because the government does not want to prepare a list of countries, and it is a list that it has to have. If the government does not have a list, it is almost negligence. However, to not be able to share that list with the organizations is shocking to me. It is absurd.

Another thing, which we tried to fix, is that in the legislation there is the term “links to a terrorist group”, which is not defined anywhere. There is nothing in this legislation that would define “links to a terrorist group”. What does that mean? Does it mean a person who rode on the same bus as someone, or who is talking to someone whose sister-in-law is implicated? Nobody knows what it means. It has no legal definition. In fact, I will read from the brief from the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, which said:

This is much too discretionary; for example, would distant family ties, former work or school associates, or membership in the same religious community or congregation be considered links? In our work, we have seen how each of these types of “links” have been identified by security agencies as being grounds for suspicion based solely on guilt by association. The example of Afghanistan, a Muslim majority country, is apt in this assistance, as we have particularly observed how Muslims in Canada are subject to this exact kind of guilt by association, leading to increased surveillance, loss of security clearances and employment [and] even includes the sharing of information which has led to rendition, arbitrary detention and torture

This is not good legislation when we have organizations like this one telling us that this does not make sense and that it is not clear.

The other piece I have with this legislation is that, right now, I have been told by the government that it is going to put policies in place to make sure that this all works just fine. However, the problem with policies are that other governments can come forward, and other governments can use the legislation differently. I have a very deep concern that, if we were to get a Conservative government, Conservatives could weaponize international development, and I will tell members why I think that is a concern. It is because they have done it before.

I was in the sector when the Harper government weaponized and refused funding to Oxfam. I was in the sector when the government weaponized it when Bev Oda wrote the infamous “not” on the application for funding so that Kairos, who had been critical of the government, could not get funding. The Conservative government has done this before. They could do it again, and there is no protection in this legislation to make sure that does not happen.

What happens if, all of a sudden, organizations are not allowed to work in Gaza? What happens if, all of a sudden, the government decides to delay providing the exemption? Right now, there are three ministries involved: public safety, justice and international development. I have spent most of my career trying to get funding through Global Affairs Canada and I can tell everyone that it is almost never able to deliver on the timelines it puts forward, through no fault of its own. Some of the best, most devoted public servants in our country are at Global Affairs Canada, but they are under-resourced, understaffed and under-empowered to make the decisions.

Let us add in two more ministries and see how that goes, and let us think about that in context as well. A humanitarian crisis is an emergency. That means that things have to happen in hours, not days. Action has to be taken to save lives in hours. We heard from one of the witnesses that they think they would be able to get a decision back to organizations well within six months. Within six months, people are dying. People need the support, they are dying and hours make all the difference, but we are being told months, and that is from a government that has not been able to deliver on its promises to date. I am deeply concerned about that.

There is another thing I want to bring up very quickly. One of the amendments we were able to get through and that I am very happy about is that there will be a one-year review, so we will be reviewing this legislation in one year. It is part of the reason I think it is very important for the House to look at this seriously and keeps a very close eye on it.

I cannot support this legislation. This legislation goes against all of the principles of international development and international humanitarian law. It does not listen to the sector and to the supports that the sector has asked for.

There is one other thing. We are also the only country in this situation. The U.S. has a humanitarian exemption. The U.K., the EU and other countries were able to do what the Liberal government could not do. They were able to do what the government, with the support of every party in this House, was unable to manage to get done.

I know the bill will pass. It will not pass with my support. I do not believe that this legislation is worthy of being passed. The fact that other parties are voting for it indicates that they have a smaller understanding of international development and humanitarian law. I am glad that the help will get to the people of Afghanistan as soon as possible. I am appalled that it has taken us two years to get to this point, but the international development sector offering people in crisis around the world crumbs and telling them they have to take it because that is all there is on offer is un-Canadian.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. That is one of the consequences of this bill. I mentioned it and I believe that she, too, understood my point. We have no choice but to pass it now. It is better to have NGOs on the ground than to have no one. At present, people cannot go work in Afghanistan because they would be in violation of the Criminal Code. That will be the case until we pass this bill.

It truly is a ridiculous state of affairs. It was worse in the beginning, at first reading of Bill C‑41. Clearly, there was mistrust of NGOs, as though they were fundamentally doing something wrong and it was up to them to prove otherwise, whereas we should be reversing the burden of proof.

I agree with my colleague, 100%. As I said, everyone tried to come to a compromise for this bill. That is what has happened. Admittedly, it is far from perfect. However, people are suffering in Afghanistan right now, and we absolutely must vote in favour of this bill, even if it means tabling a new bill to improve it when Parliament resumes in the fall. In the meantime, a number of NGOs in the sector are asking us to pass the bill. Then we will see if we can amend or improve it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is quite an honour for me to rise with you in the chair. It is a first for me, and I hope I will live up to your wisdom. I am a bit nervous about my speech and I am worried you will find it is not up to snuff, but we can talk about that later.

Last year, many of my colleagues from the other parties and I had the honour to serve on the Special Committee on Afghanistan. I was one of the co-chairs of that committee. One of the very first questions that I had the opportunity to ask the witnesses over a year ago now at the February 7, 2022, meeting was this:

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...?

That was February 7, 2022. I asked that question as soon as I had the opportunity to do so, both to the organizations themselves and to the various departments involved. It will come as no surprise, then, that I was quite happy to hear the government finally announce that it was going to amend Canada's Criminal Code to make it possible for humanitarian aid to flow again and to allow NGOs to do their work without fear of prosecution. That was exactly what the NGOs were afraid of.

Bill C‑41 is a useful bill that will help us make progress in the area of humanitarian aid. I am happy to have made my small contribution along with my colleagues from the other parties.

As everyone knows, I am a lover of democracy. I am one of those who believe that, despite differences of opinion, working together is beneficial to the parliamentary process the majority of the time. I would therefore like to thank my colleagues with whom I have worked over the last few weeks to try to improve this bill, but also to support its speedy passage. I would like to mention them by name because, unfortunately, it has been a long-term process, but one of collaboration. I want to thank the member for Oakville North—Burlington, the member for Edmonton Strathcona and the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. A number of other MPs took part in the work, but it was this group of MPs who worked in greater depth on the bill and managed to find some common ground. I would also like to take this opportunity to tell them that I am proud of the work we accomplished. It shows that, despite our often differing positions, and sometimes even completely opposing positions, we can work together and get things done.

Ultimately, Bill C‑41 is a good bill, but we have to be careful not to get ahead of ourselves. Although I consider it a good bill, I had to temper my expectations a few times. There is nothing unusual in that; it goes hand in hand with teamwork and collaboration among the parties. Still, although I dare hope we achieved a result that will satisfy everyone, I think Bill C-41 could have been much better. Let me explain.

The bill is now in the Senate for a pre-study before it reaches report stage. As it is currently written, the Criminal Code does not include any exemptions to facilitate the delivery of essential activities in areas affected by terrorism. The government of Canada tabled Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts, on March 9. 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, the proposed amendments would create a new authorization scheme that would allow those that provide humanitarian aid 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. For example, sometimes the Taliban may collect taxes at roadside checkpoints they have set up and people have to pay to be able to pass through. Under the Criminal Code, any Canadian or person in Canada making or authorizing such payments would risk contravening a provision of the Criminal Code.

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.

Some humanitarian groups welcome the bill, but others were less favourable because they feel it creates more legal obstacles and red tape.

For the sake of clarity, here is what Bill C‑41 set out at first reading. Under this regime, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, the Minister of Public Safety or an authorized delegate would have the authority to grant an authorization to NGOs.

That seems like a lot of people. When we talk about bureaucracy, that is what we are talking about. I think it is clear that Bill C‑41, at its foundation, may not have been ideal.

“The authorizations would shield applicants from criminal liability for certain activities such as the provision of international assistance...that would otherwise risk contravening the Criminal Code.” That is a good aspect of the bill and it is about time.

“In deciding whether to grant an authorization, the Minister of Public Safety would consider referrals by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, and take into account their assessment of the application”. All of that remains to be seen.

The Bloc Québécois criticized the government for using an approach based on mistrust, even though it already knows a good number of the Canadian NGOs that it collaborates with and who have a proven track record. No departmental representative was able to tell me how long the authorization process would take. Even if someone had given me a figure, would we have believed them? Since becoming an MP, I have had many opportunities to observe how slowly the Canadian bureaucracy moves.

At first reading of Bill C‑41, it provided for applications for authorization to be processed within a reasonable period of time by the Government of Canada. I repeat that we were talking about a reasonable period of time by the Government of Canada. That is scary.

Despite the positive advances in Bill C‑41 at first reading, what worried me was the number of interventions required between departments and the impact of such a bill on humanitarian organizations. It is no secret that when it comes to processing times, I get the sense that there are some departments that do not spend much time checking the clock. For NGOs working in countries such as Afghanistan, where the situation is deteriorating before our eyes, time is running out.

As I said earlier, when Bill C‑41 was being studied in committee, I had to make some concessions. That is fine and it is to be expected. The Bloc Québécois worked closely with the other parties and with stakeholders to speed up the passage of this bill but, more importantly, to improve it.

Overall, I was happy with the result. Imagine my surprise, however, when I learned in committee that the government was boasting about having held extensive consultations with major NGOs in drafting the bill. We quickly realized that some major organizations like Doctors Without Borders had not been consulted, when those are the organizations who are most familiar with what is happening on the ground. The entire sector should have been consulted, but unfortunately, it was not.

Another unfortunate point is that I get the impression that this is starting to become a habit on the government side. Bills are introduced, but, often, the community that will be most impacted by them has not been consulted, or the government consulted a small, select group of people who often have close ties to the Liberal Party, people who are already convinced. I think the government should do a little soul-searching and perhaps re-evaluate the way it conducts consultations on bills that are to be tabled in the House.

Although all the parties had announced their willingness to pass the bill quickly so that humanitarian aid could get to Afghans in need as quickly as possible, it still took quite a while.

The original bill contained some problematic provisions, including a very significant concentration of power in the hands of the Minister of Public Safety, a lack of predictability for NGOs and overreach in certain elements of Canadian government investigations.

For this reason, I think that the amended version of Bill C‑41 achieves the necessary balance between security, justice and humanitarian aid.

What is more, opposition members were united on most of the amendments proposed. My colleagues who spoke before me mentioned that, and the ones who will speak after me will say the same thing. However, I must also point out that the government was available and honestly open to discussion.

I want to thank the member for Oakville North—Burlington, with whom I spoke many times, sometimes late into the night, to try to come to an agreement so that the bill would be passed by the House. Yes, the opposition parties were united on some of the amendments, but the government was also very open. I want to say that it is a pleasure to work with my Liberal Party colleague. I know her reputation and I know that I am not the only one who finds it easy to work with her. All of my colleagues who have worked with the member for Oakville North—Burlington on various files have said the same thing. We often give the government a hard time because that is our job, but when someone works hard and is open to discussion, it is only right to acknowledge it.

Ultimately, the amendments that were adopted improve the bill on several fronts. First, they remove the sword of Damocles hanging over the NGOs wishing to contribute to humanitarian aid in areas controlled by a terrorist group, as the principle of wilfully provided illegitimate aid will be incorporated into the Criminal Code. NGOs will nonetheless have to make reasonable efforts to minimize any potential benefit to terrorist groups. The minister will also be required to inform any eligible group or person of the classes of activities that would require authorization in certain geographic areas. The amendments also provide for an annual report by the minister outlining the applications that were approved or refused in the previous calendar year, as well as a comprehensive review of the impact of the bill, with a detailed plan to remedy any deficiencies that may be identified.

The amended bill is a version that, on paper, seems to suit the objectives of all the parties. The true impact of these legislative measures on the ground remains to be seen, however. That is why I want to say that the NGOs and the communities involved are the ones who will be able to tell us whether this is going to work. Unfortunately, we will only know during humanitarian crises in areas controlled by terrorists. That means that things will go badly somewhere in the world. The people who are there to help the less fortunate and the vulnerable are the ones who will be able to tell us whether these legislative measures are working or not.

It is mind-boggling to know that it took almost two years since the evacuation operation in Afghanistan for us to finally adopt this kind of legislation in Canada. If I remember correctly, on December 22, 2021, the UN proposed resolution 2615 to respond to the problem of NGOs that want to work in areas controlled by terrorists. The UN adopted that resolution on December 22, 2021 and here we are in June 2023. Canada is finally waking up. It is extremely problematic. Let us not forget that when the pandemic hit the entire country, all the opposition parties came together to adopt legislative measures to quickly come to the help of the Quebec and Canadian people. These were very complex bills that contained complex provisions, but we got the job done in a matter of weeks.

Everyone agrees that there is a problem in Afghanistan, that children are probably dying, and that vulnerable women, men and children are suffering and experiencing one of the worst humanitarian crises on the planet. Why has it taken two years to amend Canada's Criminal Code to help them, whereas Parliament was able to quickly adopt pandemic measures over the course of barely two weeks?

Every time I asked the ministers why it was taking so long, I was told that the situation was complex, that there were many things to examine and that they did not want to rush. It was urgent, and it is still urgent.

For this Liberal government, is the situation of a Canadian who loses their job because of the pandemic more important than that of an Afghan child who needs humanitarian aid to eat and who will die if they do not get it? That is the question we needed to ask. Unfortunately, I believe I know the answer: No, it was not urgent for this government, otherwise the bill would have passed a long time ago.

When the government announced that it planned to amend the Criminal Code to facilitate the provision of humanitarian assistance in areas controlled by terrorist groups, the Bloc Québécois reached out to the government. We announced that we wanted to work twice as hard to pass the bill quickly so that our NGOs could once again do their work on the ground and humanitarian aid could reach vulnerable populations.

I think it is fair to say that the government did not define the word “quickly” the same way we did. However, let us remain optimistic and continue in a spirit of collaboration. Right now, Bill C-41 is a step in the right direction for humanitarian workers and people who are suffering. However, we will need to take more than one step forward to improve the situation. Since the situation is urgent and we need to be on the ground as quickly as possible, I think we have no choice but to vote in favour of this bill. However, I can understand how some of my colleagues, knowing that the bill will be passed, will vote against it in order to send a message to the government that this bill is not ideal.

Of course I have the utmost respect for my esteemed NDP colleague from Edmonton Strathcona. I know she has a background in this field, and she had several criticisms of this bill. While we may vote differently, I think we agree on the principle that we need to help the NGOs do their job. This bill does not necessarily have unanimous consent, but at least we were able to improve it through a number of amendments when the opposition worked together. I think it is important to emphasize that. Just because the NDP and the Bloc Québécois will be voting differently does not mean we are not on the same page. That may sound a bit odd, but it is nevertheless true.

In closing, I hope the government will learn from how it handled this file. It is just wrong for the government to drag its feet when it is well aware of a situation that calls for diligent action. When it is a matter of life and death, that is just wrong. This government, which claims to champion human rights while not giving a penny for international development and doing even less than the Harper government did, I would remind the House, needs to stop thinking that it is the best in the world when it comes to human rights. One need only look at how it handled this bill. It is just wrong that the government took so long to do this while people are suffering.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For as long as I live, I will definitely never forget that I delivered a speech with you in the chair.

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 third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House today concerning this important piece of legislation, Bill C-41, the trigger of which is the crisis in Afghanistan, but which, more broadly, seeks to establish a framework for allowing vitally needed short- and long-term development assistance to get into areas controlled by terrorist organizations.

I want to start my remarks today by speaking about the legislative process more generally, because I think the process we have been through on Bill C-41 has been quite effective and may be instructive for other kinds of engagements going forward. Our primary role as members of Parliament is to be legislators, and naturally we get drawn into a variety of other activities that are also important but are not as central. We are here to legislate. We are here to make law, understand laws that are before the House, debate them, propose changes to them, try to make them better and represent our constituents specifically in the law-making process.

The process that bills are supposed to go through is this: They are presented by the government as items for consideration without being perfect or approaching perfection at that point. Then they are debated in principle and members vote on the principle. Then they are analyzed in detail at committee. There should be meaningful consideration and back-and-forth discussions among parties, oriented toward making the bill as good as possible. Then we come back to the House for report stage and third reading.

Very often, sadly, bills are presented in a way that presumes they are in their final form, and the discussion in the House treats them as if the legislative process is a necessary evil instead of a vital process of refinement. Too often, there is pressure to push legislation forward as is and to accept it as a good bill, so we pass it instead of actually digging into the meat or substance of it. I think also that, too often, we see cases of legislation that does not have detail in it but, rather, provides an enabling framework for the government to simply do whatever it wants afterwards. All these cases involve a minimization of the important role legislators are supposed to play in the process of making good laws for our country.

I think, with respect to Bill C-41, though, the process worked very well. The government put forward a piece of legislation that was very flawed, and the need for the legislation was clear, based on advocacy from various stakeholder organizations, including, in particular, people from the Afghan Canadian community and from the development sector. Opposition parties had been asking for this. There were a number of motions at the foreign affairs committee calling for legislation that would allow humanitarian and longer-term development assistance to get into Afghanistan, so the advocacy that happened led to the government's putting forward legislation, though legislation that was flawed.

We debated it in principle, then we brought it to committee and had lengthy, painstaking and detailed negotiations among different parties. The conversations were multidimensional. They were all motivated by the sincere desire of everyone to make the bill better and recognized the urgency of resolving the challenge we have of the legal impediments to getting vitally needed humanitarian assistance into Afghanistan. Those conversations happened; they were constructive all the way along, and, as opposition members, we were very grateful as well for the hard work and involvement of our non-partisan public service.

I think there is an important interplay that happens, as well, between legislators and the public service, which is that we should not simply take or be expected to take as given the products we are given by the public servants; it is our job to challenge, question and say that we want them to come up with a different solution to problems. Public servants were responsive to those issues and questions, and we deferred to their expertise when there were technical concepts that needed to be understood.

I think there was very good interplay between the parties and between legislators and the public service, which led to substantial improvements in the bill.

My only complaint about the process is that, increasingly, we are seeing committee chairs make relatively narrow rulings about the scope of bills. I think that is a trend we should watch, because when the House endorses a bill in broad principle at second reading, committees need to have the space and the scope to be able to make amendments without too narrow an interpretation of the scope parameters. That said, we solved that problem by having a unanimous consent motion in the House to deem an amendment in scope that might not otherwise have been deemed in scope. We were thus able to achieve a workaround here, but, in general, I think this is just a point of caution for committee chairs and for those who are informing these decisions to think about: that we would risk getting to a point where the kinds of improvements to a bill that are required at committee cannot be made if the interpretations of scope are too narrow.

That said, I think this was a constructive process, and we have come back with a bill that is still not perfect but is substantially improved and substantially changed as a result of members of Parliament from all parties doing the work they are supposed to be doing in terms of engaging the legislative process. I enjoyed working with all my colleagues on the committee most of the time, I would say. I enjoyed working with all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, to paraphrase an old line. It was good to be able to work with members with whom I have substantial disagreements on other issues, but with whom, nonetheless, I shared a common framework for approaching the bill.

What would the bill do? The bill engages a complex area of law, which is anti-terrorism law, and seeks to create opportunities for exemption within our terrorist financing law that would allow organizations to deliver vitally needed development assistance to areas controlled by terrorist organizations, while seeking to minimize any kind of interaction with terrorist organizations. When we brought in Canada's terrorist financing regime, the principle, essentially, was that this was the most extreme sanction available for any organization, and that, when an organization is on the terrorist list, there should be absolutely no truck or trade whatsoever with this organization. This is a good principle to start from, but when terrorist organizations control territory, there may be instances where there need to be certain kinds of minimal engagement. If we do not have a nimble enough framework that allows that kind of minimal engagement, then the likely outcome is simply that fewer organizations would be listed as terrorist groups.

Our view is that we need to be able to list terrorist organizations as terrorist organizations and keep them on the terrorist list even if they control territory. It would be perverse to have terrorist organizations taken off the terrorist list simply because they became militarily successful. We need a framework that allows us to list and to maintain the listing of terrorist organizations even while they control territory, but also that allows organizations be able to provide assistance to people in those areas, a framework that allows certain kinds of minimal interactions, such as paying a bridge toll or using space in a building to deliver food aid. Naturally, these exceptions need to be quite limited, but they should exist. I have not heard anybody say that people who, through no fault of their own, happen to live in areas controlled by terrorists should be condemned to not receiving any kind of assistance or support.

I want to respond to an objection raised by an NDP member, because I think there is an important distinction to be made here. The NDP member who spoke a few minutes ago said that the bill would criminalize certain activity that might be undertaken by development organizations. The bill would not do that. The bill would create a potential for a general exemption in the case of humanitarian assistance, and a potential for an exemption through an authorization regime in the case of other development assistance. The bill would create an exception to existing criminal law; it would not create that criminal law.

Today, and as the law has existed for a long time, an organization that is seeking to do humanitarian assistance, but in the process gives money to a terrorist organization, could well run afoul of criminal law. Much could be said about that reality, but that is the existing legal reality. Today, Canadian development organizations in many cases have not been able to work in Afghanistan because of the existing criminal law that means that their risk calculation is that there is some risk of prosecution if they are engaged in Afghanistan, even if they minimize their interactions with the Taliban.

I think it is wrong to measure this bill against some abstract standard of perfection. What we should measure this bill against is the status quo that it improves upon. This bill does not criminalize anything. It creates exemptions and the possibility for exemptions to existing criminal law. As far as I understood the position that, for most of this debate, the NDP were articulating at committee, even they would or should regard this as an improvement on the status quo. It seems that they have now chosen to oppose a bill that does not improve enough on the status quo. I think it is fair to say that this bill, in certain respects, does not improve enough on the status quo but, from our perspective, it does not make sense to oppose a bill simply because it is not perfect, or simply because it does not go far enough in the desired directions.

We have to recognize that there are important complexities on the other side of this. Some amendments were proposed, for example, that would limit the definition of a terrorist group to only listed terrorist entities. That would be a substantial change to terrorist financing law and it would allow organizations that have, for instance, a terrorist purpose, but are not listed as terrorist entities, to be able to receive financing from Canada. Our approach was to try to strike an appropriate balance to protect the integrity of our anti-terrorism regime, to improve on the bill as much as we could, to provide greater predictability for humanitarian organizations, but also, recognizing how quickly we wanted to move on this bill, to not have kind of broad substantial changes to terrorist financing law that would have all kinds of other impacts outside of the area of development assistance.

I am proud of the role that Conservatives were able to play in those discussions. I think we took a reasonable approach that improved the bill and that will provide us with a framework that will facilitate the continuing listing of terrorist organizations even if they control territory, while also being able to be engaged constructively with the people of those areas.

I want to share just some of the amendments we supported or proposed at committee. We supported an amendment on providing a humanitarian exemption that has already been discussed during debate today. The previous version of the bill said that, in effect, any development activity would require authorization if it involved that kind of activity in terrorist-controlled areas. Now the bill says that for emergency humanitarian relief, an exemption is not required. There is a general exemption but for longer-term development assistance, likely in cases where there is actually time to make this application and consider it, that there is an authorization regime in place.

We put forward an amendment that would allow organizations to ask if they need to apply. There has been a lot of discussion, rightly, about the Afghan context, but there are many cases where it is much more ambiguous. There might be a group that could be considered a terrorist group but is not a listed terrorist entity, that partially controls sort of semi un-governed parts of the country, and then organizations have to make the judgment call of what kinds of interactions would be required and whether this organization is a terrorist group or not. We felt that it was not appropriate to put the onus on development organizations to make these kinds of calls. They should be able to ask the government to get feedback. This was an area in which there was a great deal of discussion. I think we came to a good compromise.

We also supported amendments around the protection of personal information and Conservatives put forward the amendment on moving up the review clauses. This reflects our belief that this legislation has problems. It is not perfect and needs work, but it also needs to pass. Having a one-year review will allow us to see how the government is doing in terms of implementation and how the regime is working.

I would like to speak more broadly to the situation in Afghanistan. I want to be clear that this bill is not in any way softening our denunciation of the Taliban. In fact, this bill and the accompanying conversation have reinforced our denunciation of the Taliban. In the absence of a bill like this, a government has to consider either maintaining a terrorist listing and, therefore, the associated restrictions on development assistance or lifting a terrorist listing with all the attendant problems with that.

This bill would allow us to maintain the listing of terrorist organizations that ought to continue to be listed as terrorist organizations. It would allow us to list other organizations, such as the IRGC or the Wagner Group, that have close relationships with government and may, in certain instances, be conceived of as controlling territory. It would allow us to list government-affiliated entities without fear of negatively impacting the flow of development assistance. This would, therefore, strengthen our ability to denounce and hold accountable terrorist organizations like the Taliban.

It is very important for this House to remain seized with the situation in Afghanistan. A humanitarian crisis is ongoing there, but there is also the fundamental crisis in human rights and recognition of universal human dignity that is not happening, needless to say, by the de facto authorities.

Canada has had a long-running commitment to Afghanistan. Over 150 Canadian soldiers died fighting for the freedom of that country. We need to honour the sacrifices of those Canadians, as well as Afghans and other allies who fought along with them, by continuing to work on the advancement of freedom and democracy in Afghanistan. There are ongoing efforts under way by the Afghan people in Afghanistan and in the diaspora to build up the necessary institutions in exile, to challenge the Taliban and to work toward the restoration of freedom and democracy.

The Afghan people want us to be firm in sanctioning the Taliban, in condemning its human rights abuses and also in looking for ways to support and engage with opposition groups across the spectrum, different types of opposition groups doing different kinds of things. We heard yesterday at the foreign affairs committee from one of those groups, speaking about the hope that, because of the Taliban's general ineffectiveness due to the problems, the Taliban could be on its way to a kind of structural collapse earlier than many people expected. We can hope for that collapse and the restoration of freedom and democracy in Afghanistan, and we should not give ourselves over to undue pessimism as it relates to Afghanistan. We need to continue to be engaged, thinking and proposing ideas for a brighter future for Afghanistan when this dark night is over.

Canada has been there in the past. The abandonment of Afghanistan in the recent chaotic pullout and the failure of the Canadian government to evacuate those who needed to be evacuated are sad points in terms of our engagement, but we need to work together as parliamentarians to build for a brighter future for Afghanistan.

I want to commit to all those listening in the Afghan community that it will continue to be a priority for me to think about and work on how Canada can honour its commitments to Afghanistan and continue to work with the Afghan diaspora, the people of Afghanistan, to address the immediate humanitarian crisis, but also to work for the restoration of freedom and democracy and the expansion of pluralism that includes ethnic and religious minorities. This is possible, this is realistic and we must continue that work going forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am torn about Bill C-41, only to the extent that I understand why some of my NDP colleagues will be voting against it. I will be voting for it. It is urgent that Canada provide the cover for massively needed humanitarian aid and assistance.

This is an aspect of what the government claims is a feminist foreign policy. The government in Afghanistan has declared war on its women, and we are not doing enough. I ask my hon. colleague to share with us, if she will, because she is such a strong feminist, what else she thinks we ought to be doing to protect the women and girls in Afghanistan and why we have not gotten the women who were former members of Parliament out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is too bad, but Bill C-41 is not the solution to such a vitally important issue. This bill was flawed from the start. The work should have been done by Global Affairs Canada, not Public Safety Canada.

The NDP cannot support a bill that says that the international solidarity sector must request the Canadian government's authorization to go save lives abroad. The premise of this bill, which involves getting the permission of a government, the Government of Canada, goes against the humanitarian principles of neutrality, independence and impartiality.

The NDP feels it is unacceptable to have a bill that could criminalize foreign aid in the Gaza Strip, for example. There is a risk that people who want to help and save lives could face criminal prosecution.

Why are the Liberals proposing a bill that could have those sorts of consequences?

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

Mr. Speaker, today we conclude debate on Bill C-41 before sending it off to the Senate. This legislation aims to address important aspects of the deepening crisis in Afghanistan and responds to calls from Canadian humanitarian aid agencies to deliver relief to a country on the brink.

Once again, the committee process did the good work I have seen time and time again in this place, making the bill we have before us today better than it was, better because we listened and we responded.

We included an important amendment from the member for Edmonton Strathcona to include a humanitarian carve-out in the bill. I will expand more on that later, but I thank her for bringing this forward so we could unanimously support it. As someone who has worked in the humanitarian sector, she brings a passion to her work that reflects her clear desire for a better world.

Although we were both elected in 2015, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and I have never worked together before. There are many issues on which we have divergent views, but on the issue of aid to Afghanistan and to those most in urgent need, we are on the same page. I want to sincerely thank him for the patient and collaborative approach he brought to this bill. I can confidently say we would not be here today without his efforts.

My friend from the Bloc Québécois, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, asked at committee:

Can the committee members make some concessions and manage to balance out this bill to get a deal as quickly as possible?...As a parliamentarian, I'm trying to see what's acceptable to humanitarian organizations to get this bill passed as quickly as possible.

That is exactly what we accomplished with the bill before us now. I thank the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean for his passion, for ensuring we are acting to save lives in Afghanistan and around the world, for his trust and his friendship, and for the productive way we worked together.

Before talking about the changes made to the bill, I want to reiterate what brought us here. I am proud of the cross-party collaborative efforts made by the Special Committee on Afghanistan and the important recommendations put forward by that committee, reflecting the work Canadian non-governmental organizations and humanitarian aid agencies have put forward as a pathway to deliver aid to Afghanistan.

The situation in Afghanistan is 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.

I want to remind the House that Afghanistan was a country that was reliant on foreign aid before the takeover by the Taliban. According to the special committee's report:

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 [and violent] 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 [rightly] subject to sanctions in relation to terrorism.

An important motion was passed at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights following the passage of Bill C-41 reiterating:

That the committee report to the House that it firmly denounces the Taliban and rejects any recognition or legitimization of their control over Afghan territory. In particular, the committee denounces the Taliban system of gender discrimination, systemic violence targeting minority communities, reprisals against former members of the Afghan National Security and Defence Forces, attacks on freedom of the press, and other violations of fundamental human rights. The committee believes that the Taliban must remain a listed terrorist organization.

The overall result for Afghanistan of the takeover by the Taliban has been the near economic and institutional collapse, including an inability to provide the most basic services and pay civil servants' salaries. The net effect for the Afghan people is that prices have increased, livelihoods have disappeared and household resources have been exhausted. Egregious human rights violations are taking place, in particular impacting women and girls.

To encapsulate the enormity of this situation, John Aylieff, regional director for Asia and the Pacific in the World Food Programme, told the special committee, “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 require food assistance, nearly nine million were one step away from famine, while some one million children were at risk of perishing this year from acute malnutrition. The population of Afghanistan is 40 million, and 23 million require food assistance. Canadian aid agencies are ready and willing to help.

As Michael Messenger, CEO of World Vision Canada, described, they had two containers, “full of packets of ready-to-use therapeutic food...to treat children facing the severest forms of malnutrition. This [is food that] can literally bring children back from the brink of death by starvation.” The organization could not ship it to Afghanistan, despite the pleas from their team on the ground. Each container would have helped more than 900 children.

Martin Fischer, director of policy at World Vision Canada, reiterated recently at the justice committee their organization's inability to deliver aid in Afghanistan, saying, “every organization has a different risk appetite and arrives at conclusions regarding risk in a different way. For World Vision Canada, there was a decision that we wouldn't find workarounds, either any through our global partnerships or any other way”.

Bill C-41 should provide registered Canadian organizations the clarity and assurances needed to deliver humanitarian assistance and 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 and support of a generation of leaders, many of whom were women, who were building a better country for Afghans.

Currently, the Criminal Code contains strong counter-terrorism financing provisions. Specifically, under paragraph 83.03(b), it is prohibited to directly or indirectly provide or make property available knowing it could be used by or will benefit a terrorist group. These provisions are having a significant impact on Canada's ability to deliver aid and other forms of international assistance, namely in Afghanistan. During the committee process, we heard from eight organizations who asked for changes to the bill.

Joseph Belliveau, executive director of Doctors Without Borders, testified:

Principled humanitarian work is recognized and protected by international humanitarian law, or IHL. Humanitarian organizations, such as MSF, providing essential services impartially with no commercial, political or other objective must be afforded the protection of IHL. Under IHL, humanitarian assistance cannot be considered support for any party to a conflict, even one deemed “terrorist”. In other words, providing humanitarian aid cannot be considered a crime.

IHL is integral to Canadian law. As party to the Geneva Conventions, Canada has an obligation to uphold IHL and must, according to recent United Nations Security Council resolutions, ensure that domestic counterterror legislation is compatible with IHL.

Canada's Supreme Court has similarly affirmed that the Criminal Code must be interpreted such that “innocent, socially useful or casual acts” with no criminal intent are not criminalized.

MSF acknowledges that Bill C-41 aims to facilitate rather than curtail humanitarian action. Unfortunately, Bill C-41 and the counterterror parts of the Criminal Code it relates to are, in their current formulation, inconsistent with IHL and Canadian law and will undermine Canadian humanitarianism.

We listened to MSF and adopted the NDP's amendment in Bill C-41 to amend the Criminal Code to create a humanitarian assistance carve-out from the terrorist financing offences in section 83.03, clarifying that:

Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a person who carries out any of the acts referred to in those subsections for the sole purpose of carrying out humanitarian assistance activities conducted under the auspices of impartial humanitarian organizations in accordance with international law while using reasonable efforts to minimize any benefit to terrorist groups.

Moreover, for permissible development activities in addition to the humanitarian carve-out, eligible persons and organizations could be granted certain authorizations that would shield them from criminal liability for their operations in a geographic area that is controlled by a terrorist group. This could include education, immigration services, livelihood supports or health services that could not be captured under the definition of humanitarian assistance.

The authorizations would also cover implementing partners or service providers involved in the delivery of the permissible activities. This includes the delivery of aid, in addition to support services related to immigration, including resettlement efforts and safe passage activities.

To be clear, strict measures would still be applied to prevent financial flow from reaching individuals linked to terrorist organizations where possible. Humanitarian organizations are aware of the risk of sending humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. They are also experts in the field, and they best understand how to deploy aid in the most efficient way possible to reach the most people in need without it going to the Taliban.

I want to quote a member of Islamic Relief Canada, an organization that I am proud to have in my riding of Oakville North—Burlington. They said:

In the summer of 2021, when the Taliban took over the government, we wanted to understand our risk appetite as Islamic Relief, so we figured out and calculated what the taxes were. They were around 3%. This is what we did at Islamic Relief. The U.K. and the U.S., our counterparts, do have broader humanitarian exemptions, and we wanted to continue helping the people of Afghanistan with Canadian donor funds that our donors from across the country wanted to give for Afghanistan, so we carved out the 3% that was for government taxes, and our counterparts in the U.K. subsidized that portion. As a result, no Canadian funds were being used that went to the government.

This testimony at committee helped parliamentarians understand why a humanitarian carve-out is not only so important but also possible to implement. Knowing that these humanitarian organizations are already taking it upon themselves to implement operational policies and risk assessments, to ensure that aid is getting to vulnerable Afghans and not the Taliban, helps reduce the overall risk of monies flowing to individuals linked to terrorism.

I would again note in the House that the authorization regime would not be restricted to Afghanistan. It would apply to any geographic area controlled by a terrorist group in order to be able to respond to similar situations.

Jessica Davis testified that approximately 8% of countries worldwide are controlled by terrorist groups; these include Nigeria, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and parts of West Africa, where terrorist groups are controlling territories. Bill C-41 would apply to those areas in the world as well.

At committee, we heard about the need to reduce the burden on humanitarian organizations in having to determine by themselves which geographic areas are controlled by a terrorist group. We heard that they require clarity. The amendment adopted at committee, put forward by my Conservative colleague, places a positive onus on the public safety minister to provide written information at the request of an applicant as to whether an authorization is required. This amendment considers the dynamic nature of terrorism and allows for the most up-to-date assessment of terrorist groups and their control of geographic areas.

Another important change made at committee ensures that if an application is refused, applicants would be able to reapply after 30 days. This was amended to shorten the original 180-day reapplication waiting period. This was requested by humanitarian aid organizations and reflects their desire for their organizations to reapply quickly, should they be unsuccessful for any reason. Applicants can also seek recourse through a judicial review.

An amendment to the original bill also explicitly restricts the use of applicant information for the purpose of the authorization request or its renewal. This responds to a request from humanitarian aid organizations, which articulated concerns about how the data collected in their authorization applications would be processed by departments and agencies. Moreover, information sharing by prescribed departments allows them to collect and disclose information in assisting the public safety minister in this regime; it has been limited to the purposes of the administration and enforcement of the regime. The public safety minister must ensure that the assisting entities comply.

The bill also calls for a comprehensive review of the operation of the authorization regime. This provision was amended to require that it occur within the first year rather than the fifth year of this section coming into force, followed by every five years thereafter.

I recognize that some people are skeptical about how the new regime will work, and they are eager to see regulations developed following passage of the bill. This shortened one-year timeline will ensure that we can quickly address any shortcomings, should they arise.

The Minister of Public Safety must table a report to Parliament, which must also include a plan and timeline to remedy any deficiencies. As parliamentarians, we have an obligation to all Afghans to pass this legislation, because aid to Afghanistan remains absolutely vital. With this legislation, Canada is responding to the continuing crisis in Afghanistan by facilitating the provision of humanitarian assistance, health services, education and human rights programs, as well as safe passage and immigration processing for vulnerable individuals destined for Canada. This will also help our government work with like-minded countries and international partners to advance our international priorities.

Canada has a hard-earned international reputation as both a fierce protector and a steadfast source of humanitarian assistance. It has committed to accepting at least 40,000 refugees from Afghanistan. So far, 32,745 have arrived in Canada. A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of greeting a plane of 280 Afghan refugees arriving in Toronto via the UAE. It is impossible to express the joy that these people had upon arriving in Canada. One gentleman told me that Canada is the best country in the world, and I would agree with that. I looked at the young girls arriving, thinking that they could now have an education. Most importantly, these individuals will be able to go to bed knowing they are safe.

These refugees who will make Canada home are the lucky ones. However, millions remain in Afghanistan and need our help today. Our government will continue to collaborate closely with international Canadian partners as we work together to accomplish our shared humanitarian and development assistance commitments.

Martin Fischer, head of policy at World Vision Canada, stated:

We believe that with some fine tuning, it is a critical step forward in a longer-term journey to ensure that Canadian humanitarian organizations as well as those delivering other services in these difficult contexts can operate in a neutral, impartial and independent manner in the most difficult and exceptional circumstances.... We cannot lose sight of the severity of the humanitarian crisis there and the obligations that Canada and Canadians have to help.

I firmly believe that the committee process has ensured that the bill we have before us has been improved by the input of civil society and the collaborative work of parliamentarians, as well as that the fine tuning has been achieved. This legislation will truly make a change that will save the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in the world.

As Martin said, as Canadians, we have to help. It is in our nature. As parliamentarians, we have an obligation to help. Bill C-41 will ensure that humanitarian organizations can deliver aid to Afghanistan and save lives.

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 8, Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts, as amended, is deemed concurred in at report stage on division.

(Bill, as amended, concurred in)

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 8, the House will now proceed to third reading of this bill.