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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-41, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, inflation is a global phenomenon. It is good that Canada is below the OECD average. It is also below the G7 average, the G20 average, the U.S., the U.K., Spain, Germany and many other countries. Of course, that is not good enough. We have to continue to lead and do everything we can. That is why I am so proud that this House just adopted a budget with critical measures to help Canadians in every corner of this country with affordability, because we are not going to fix the problem of global inflation by slashing support to the most vulnerable.

After passing the budget, this House has important work to do over the next two weeks.

It will start this evening as we resume debate on Bill C-35, on early learning and child care, at report stage. Once that debate is done, we will resume debate on Bill C-33, on railway safety. Tomorrow, we will debate Bill C-41, on humanitarian aid. On Monday at noon, we will begin second reading debate of Bill C-48 concerning bail reform, and then we will go to Bill C-35 at third reading after question period. On Tuesday we will call Bill S-8, on sanctions, at report stage and third reading.

On top of this, priority will be given to Bill C-22, the disability benefit, and Bill C-40 regarding miscarriage of justice reviews, as well as our proposal to implement changes to the Standing Orders, which were tabled earlier today, to render provisions with respect to hybrid Parliament permanent in this House.

Furthermore, I have a unanimous consent motion that I would like to propose in relation to the debate tomorrow.

I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, in relation to Bill C-41, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts:

(a) the amendment in Clause 1 adopted by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which reads as follows:

“(a) by adding after line 26 on page 1 the following:

(4) 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.

“(b) by deleting lines 15 to 19 on page 2.”

be deemed within the principle of the bill; and

(b) when the bill is taken up at report stage:

(i) it be deemed concurred in, as amended, on division, after which the bill shall be immediately ordered for consideration at the third reading stage,

(ii) not more than one sitting day or five hours of debate, whichever is the shortest, shall be allotted for consideration at the third reading stage,

(iii) five minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders that day, at the conclusion of the five hours allocated for the debate, or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith without further debate or amendment, provided that, if a recorded division is requested, it shall be deferred pursuant to order made Thursday, June 23, 2022.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you.

Through Bill C‑41, Canada is in the process of amending the Criminal Code so that humanitarian organizations operating in Afghanistan can continue working on the ground without being seen as providing financial support to a terrorist group. Understandably, that has benefits. I'm curious about two things.

One, is that something Afghan civil society has called for?

Two, what risks might there be?

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

Thank you very much to the witnesses.

I think the point is so important that Canada must maintain its commitment to Afghanistan in advancing freedom and democracy in Afghanistan and honouring the sacrifices of so many Canadians who fought and died in Afghanistan for Afghanistan's freedom, but also honouring those we fought alongside.

Mr. Nazary, thank you for being here. I want to ask you three specific questions. I will ask them together.

First, how can we in the present context pursue the advancement of freedom and democracy in Afghanistan? I think many Canadians would be feeling a little bit pessimistic right now. Perhaps you can help us chart the course to some optimism—not blind optimism, but some good, concrete action that we can take towards that goal.

Second, can you share a little bit with us about the National Resistance Front? Are there ways in which you think we should be supporting you directly?

Third, we're dealing in an ongoing way with Bill C-41, which in part is about trying to get humanitarian support to the people of Afghanistan while not in any way supporting the Taliban. How can we address the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan and help the Afghan people in the immediate circumstances while still intensifying the sanctions and the consequences for the Taliban regime in response to the violence they are inflicting?

I will hand it over to you. Thank you again.

Justice and Human Rights

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following two reports of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The first is the 11th report, in relation to Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

The second is the 12th report, in relation to the motion adopted on Wednesday, May 31, regarding the Taliban regime and human rights.

Business of the House

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I have had the honour to share with our very dear colleagues in the House the message concerning the Thursday question. I am very pleased to answer my colleague.

As members know, Bill C-47, the budget implementation act, was reported from committee yesterday, so we will call it for the final stages of debate starting tomorrow and then continue early next week on Monday and Tuesday.

We will also give priority to Bill C-40, the miscarriage of justice review commission act, also known as David and Joyce Milgaard's law; Bill C-48, bail reform; and Bill C-41, humanitarian assistance.

Finally, I would like to inform the House that next Thursday will be an opposition day.

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

Thank you, Chair.

In recognition of the fact that there are a lot of questions about how this regime would work and the functioning of the bill, we have proposed an amendment that would significantly beef up the review requirements and move the timeline forward. It's basically asking the government to report back to the committee within a year, in a detailed way, about how well it's working and if further changes are required.

I think, given the urgency of passing Bill C-41, but also some of the questions about it, it makes sense for us to.... I think the approach we're taking is to pass it, but also to call for a quick review within a year to see if it is working or not.

Thanks.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Yes, and I will be moving this one as well.

NDP-10 clarifies and narrows the minister's power to request additional information. It ensures that it must relate only to the authorization or its renewal. It should be read, and we would like it to be referred to with NDP-11 as well.

The sector has argued that the powers granted to the minister in Bill C-41 are too broad and that Bill C-41 should clearly state what the requested information may be used for. It provides some of that and narrows the scope of the minister's powers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Next is NDP-6.

I want to have some clarification on this from Ms. McPherson on what the term “Canadian” refers to on line 9 of page 3 of Bill C-41. This will assist us in determining whether the amendment—

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting 68 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order of reference of March 27, 2023, the committee is meeting to continue its study of Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. Since it's all members and we have no witnesses who are unfamiliar with the Zoom application, I will skip those instructions.

On our agenda today, we will continue our clause-by-clause study of Bill C-41.

We have officials with us again to provide answers on technical questions throughout our study today. We thank you for making yourselves available to help us once more.

From the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, we have Teresa Matias, who is acting director general, policy and outreach, Afghanistan sector.

We also have, from the Department of Global Affairs, Nancy Segal. Thank you for coming and joining us.

From the Department of Justice, we have Robert Brookfield, director general and senior general counsel, criminal law policy. Thank you.

We also have Glenn Gilmour, counsel, criminal law policy section.

Last, from the Department of Public Safety, we have Richard Bilodeau, director general.

Welcome to all of you. Let's return to where we were before adjourning meeting 61.

(On clause 1)

We're resuming consideration of clause, 1 on amendment CPC-1.

Ms. Damoff.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

One of my concerns, of course, is that there will be unintended consequences, that folks who shouldn't be suffering punitive actions will suffer.

Again, that is what we saw in Bill C-41, when we weaponized international development instead of preventing terrorism from being funded.

What we're looking at right now is a situation in which, if somebody wants to appeal—they don't agree with the decision; they feel they shouldn't be on this list and shouldn't be added—they have to come to you, and then they go to Minister Joly.

My concern is that they get all these things clarified...and is that mechanism actually going to work? You will know that the business of government is not a quick fix in a situation—no insult intended directly to you.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for being here today and answering our questions on Bill S-8. I'm very grateful to you for taking on sanctions. I think it's very important for us to strengthen our sanctions regime.

As Mr. Bergeron mentioned, we are going to be undertaking a study that I brought forward for us to look at. One of my big concerns with our sanctions regime, of course, is the enforcement of the sanctions regime, because it's very easy to put people's names on a list, but it's not always very easy to make sure that those sanctions are being enforced.

With regard to Bill S-8, though, I have a few questions.

Minister, you heard me being a bit critical before, when the sector or experts were not consulted. We might get to Bill C-41 later on today.

I have something that I'd like to ask for, for my birthday, Mr. Minister.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here and sharing your expertise with us today, witnesses.

I just want to respond very quickly to what you said, Mr. Smith, about trade's being an important part. I would suggest that our government has promoted trade over development, over diplomacy and over peacekeeping. Frankly, when you have trade without development, diplomacy and peacekeeping, it is not trade; it's exploitation. I would flag that for the group.

When I was within the sector, I was actually sitting on the TaFIE task force, namely, the task force for improving effectiveness at Global Affairs Canada. Many of the concerns that we raised within that task force have not been addressed by Global Affairs. They are still outstanding. One of them is the time it takes for a proposal to go from proposal to completion.

I'm going to raise an issue right now about the initiative for small and medium organizations. Right now, we have this initiative, which asked for proposals in September 2021. Eighteen organizations were asked to complete a full proposal in May 2022. They have still not received a result. Basically, we have a situation where 18 proposals cannot be evaluated by Global Affairs Canada in a year—which is appalling, of course, especially because of the impact, as I'm sure you all know, that it has on organizations. My understanding is that it takes up to 17 different sign-offs for a proposal to be approved.

I have two questions.

First of all, is this acceptable? Does this meet the standards that Global Affairs Canada has in terms of time frames?

Also, if this is the case, how on earth can we expect that Bill C-41 would work in a humanitarian crisis when we require Global Affairs to be able to respond?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

I'm curious how Bill C‑41 and how it would be implemented has anything to do with the main estimates.

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

Okay. I don't really think that's a reasonable answer, respectfully.

Clearly, you've given it and you're not going to move past it, but the reality is that organizations have to make these decisions about whether or not to make an application, and we as legislators have to make decisions about where this bill would and would not apply as written. For you to say we won't know until the bill becomes law where it would apply, it puts us in a bit of an impossible situation in deciding whether or not the bill as it's written works well or not.

Also on Bill C‑41, do you plan to provide advice to organizations prior to making an application? Let's say someone comes to you and says, “We would like to know if we need to apply in order to operate in a particular place or deal with a particular organization.”

Would you answer those questions?