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.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his advocacy. I have said it in the House, and I will say it again today: If it were a matter of will, there would be 40,000 Afghan refugees here already, but we know that in reality, with everything that has been happening, there have been challenges and obstacles. We are working very hard in addressing those, for instance through Bill C-41. There are a number of factors that we do not fully control, including safe passage.

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Let me finish my response, please.

I wasn't involved in discussions on Bill C‑41, but it's important to remember that—

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

It's just that I don't have that much time, and I would be remiss if I didn't ask you a question about Bill C‑41.

We just heard from the Minister of Justice, who was unable to explain to us why it took so long, despite the fact that the solution was there. He told us that there's been a lot of discussion behind closed doors, but that he had to respect cabinet confidence.

Were you involved in those discussions? I'm not asking you what was said those discussions; I just want to know if you were part of them.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

We take our responsibilities seriously. We review and assess situations. We have come up with a solution that works within the Canadian infrastructure, if I can put it that way, and I'm proud of that.

I'm very pleased to hear that you will be supporting Bill C‑41. Course, we are not averse to amendments proposed in good faith that might improve it. I will leave the conduct of the process to the Minister of Public Safety. That said, I think we're moving in the right direction and I thank you for your support.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Minister, you tell us that Bill C‑41 is the solution. I am announcing that the Bloc Québécois will support you and will try to get this bill passed as quickly as possible. If necessary, we will try to negotiate amendments informally. That way, when it comes time to work in committee, things will move forward quickly if all parties agree.

You seem surprised to be asked why it took so long for this bill to be introduced. Since earlier, your only answer to the committee has been that, in order to protect cabinet confidence, you can't reveal what goes on behind the scenes.

If Bill C‑41 is the solution, that means it's been there all along, because nothing has changed since the problem was identified. When asked why it took so long, you tell the committee that it was because you were having discussions. So we infer it's your discussions that took a long time before you came up with this solution.

Earlier, you yourself brought up U.N. Security Council Resolution 1373. You're the one who brought it up. You may say that you werren't in office at the time, but you were the one who touted the fact that, after Resolution 1373 was passed, the Liberal government of the day acted very quickly. If they were able to act quickly in 2001, I can't understand why it was any different after that.

If the solution has been there all along, but it was your discussions that took time, does that mean the ministers in place in 2001 were much more competent than the current government?

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

Mr. Minister, thank you very much for taking part in this committee meeting.

I had the honour and privilege of being with you when Bill C‑41 was announced. It was very well received by the people who were there. It also shows how important cooperation is to the government, since your department is not the only one involved, as you so rightly said. In fact, several departments were involved in the collaborative effort that led to introducing Bill C‑41.

I know that we like to talk here about what's not, but let's not forget that of our commitment of the 40,000 there are close to 30,000 Afghans here in Canada currently

Minister, I know that the Minister of International Development, during that particular conference, referred to how, since August 2021, we have been still providing humanitarian assistance in many forms through various organizations, such as the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross. From that perspective, there may be individuals who could say that the law already did allow for humanitarian aid to be provided.

Can you share some thoughts about that and the importance of Bill C-41 being brought in?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Here's a little different twist to the question that's already been asked.

Joseph Belliveau, the executive director of Doctors Without Borders, stated that Bill C-41 is “unduly restrictive, and it should be replaced with a general humanitarian exemption.” There was a decision made by your government. I'm wondering why it decided to amend the Criminal Code rather than grant a humanitarian exemption.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to add a few things to some of your comments that have already been said, Mr. Minister. Thank you for being here, by the way.

Canadian humanitarian agencies have been calling for that legislation for quite some time. I'm deeply troubled that it took your government this long to introduce Bill C-41.

There are millions of Afghans who are in desperate need of food and other supplies, critical supplies. Time is still of the essence. You must have known of the dire straits that Afghan women and children are currently in. This has been asked before, but in light of the fact that, as you say, the minister is going to be here shortly—we're not aware he's going to be here before at least the end of April—I'm going to ask you again.

What's your excuse for taking so long to table a relatively straightforward piece of legislation? Don't you talk to the ministers?

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

I'm sorry, I certainly wouldn't want to do that.

Have you consulted with NGOs operating in countries where Bill C‑41 would apply?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister.

Minister, under Bill C-41, how long do you expect it to take to approve an application from an organization?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I wish to thank the members of this committee for inviting me to speak about the government response to the final report of the Special Committee on Afghanistan called “Honouring Canada's Legacy in Afghanistan: Responding to the Humanitarian Crisis and Helping People Reach Safety”.

I'd also like to thank my colleagues from the Department of Justice, Robert Brookfield and Glenn Gilmour.

My remarks will focus on those recommendations from the final report that relate to my responsibilities as the Minister of Justice, specifically those that relate to changes to the Criminal Code.

As you likely know, my colleague the Minister of Public Safety introduced Bill C-41 earlier this month to address the issues raised in this area of the report. It has now been referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and I hope all colleagues can work together to advance this important legislation expeditiously.

Recommendations 10 and 11 of the final report of the Special Committee on Afghanistan called for two things. First, they called for clarity in the law and, in particular, a specific exemption to the terrorism-financing offence in paragraph 83.03(b) to allow registered Canadian organizations to deliver much-needed humanitarian assistance and other basic goods to the people of Afghanistan without facing the risk of criminal liability. Second, they called for the government to review the terrorism-financing provisions in the Criminal Code and to take the urgent legislative steps necessary to ensure that those provisions do not unduly restrict legitimate humanitarian action that complies with international humanitarian principles and law.

After the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001, Canada responded to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 and enacted, within months, the Anti-terrorism Act, 2001. Among other things, this act amended the Criminal Code to create several offences designed to prevent acts of terrorism, which included three terrorism-financing offences.

Enacted rapidly to deal with the important threat from terrorism that the world was facing, those offences are broad and strict in their application.

One of these offences is found in paragraph 83.03(b) of the Criminal Code. That offence makes it a crime to directly or indirectly collect, make available, provide or invite someone to provide property or financial or related services, knowing they will be used by or will benefit a terrorist group. The legislation created in 2001 does not create any statutory exemptions to that offence.

In contrast, the regimes of many of our allies, including the U.S. and the United Kingdom, are more flexible and can accommodate targeted exceptions, which has allowed them to amend their regimes more quickly in response to the current reality in Afghanistan and to contribute to international aid efforts.

This brings us to the situation in Afghanistan today. Before August 2021, many NGOs were working diligently to provide humanitarian assistance and other kinds of assistance to the people of Afghanistan, often with financial assistance from governments.

As we are all too well aware, all that changed in the spring and summer of 2021 when the Taliban swept into power. Although Canada does not recognize the Taliban regime as government, the Taliban has de facto authority in Afghanistan and performs normal state functions, such as tax collection.

Looking at it from a Canadian perspective, there are good reasons for concern about the application of the Criminal Code to the activities of Canadian NGOs and government officials who assist them. Should they make payments, knowing that some of those monies would go to the Taliban, a terrorist group, for example by paying for salaries of Afghan employees who are subject to income tax, they could risk criminal liability under the terrorist financing offence in paragraph 83.03(b).

Bill C-41 will create an authorization regime that would allow the Minister of Public Safety to grant an authorization to Canadian organizations to conduct activities falling within a specified purpose, such as providing humanitarian assistance or providing health care or education, in Afghanistan or other areas controlled by a terrorist group. Those who receive an authorization and respect its terms would be shielded from the risk of criminal liability when carrying out those authorized activities. A national security review would be required, and other procedural safeguards would remain in place.

This change would allow Canadian humanitarian organizations to continue operating in Afghanistan and to deliver desperately needed assistance, while continuing to protect Canadians through robust anti-terrorist laws and close oversight.

Thank you again, Madam Chair, for inviting me to speak. I'm available to answer your questions.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we have a fixed amount of time to debate a wide spectrum of both domestic and international issues. Today members came in prepared to listen, debate and have an exchange on the issue of the digital charter because Canadians are concerned about this issue. We were going to have literally hours of debate on it. That will not happen because the Conservative Party, under motions, brought forward a report it wants to have a debate on.

Yesterday, Conservatives could have provided ample ideas, thoughts and reflections on the report because we were debating Bill C-41. I do not know if any member made reference to Iran, let alone the report, at all yesterday, but it would have been absolutely relevant to have done so.

What other options do opposition members have? They just had an opposition day. They wanted us to talk about a budgetary measure as opposed to talking about this issue they say is so critically important that it had to be debated today. It could have been debated a couple of days ago when they had an opposition day. They could have designated an entire day to that and had a resolution at the very end of that day, which would have forced a vote on the issue.

This is part of the games Conservative Party members play day in and day out. As the Government of Canada continues to be focused on Canadians and the issues that are important to Canadians, we will continue to tolerate the games being played by the Conservatives. At the same time, we will deal with those international issues that are so critically important to our nation in reflecting true Canadian values.

Last year, Mahsa Amini, a young lady in her early 20s, was in the community in Iran and was picked up by the morality police. It was later said that she had a heart attack and that caused her death. The morality police are not fooling anyone. We know she was abused and beaten, and that is what caused her death.

We understand and we appreciate those true freedom fighters in Iran. They are the brave women of Iran who are standing tall. They are ensuring that individuals like Mahsa are not forgotten and that what she stood for will continue to prevail and will be fought for in Iran. Mahsa inspired the world to mobilize and to recognize that what was taking place was just so wrong.

I would argue that Mahsa is one of the reasons that even members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration feel the way they do in regard to Iran and what is taking place there today. It motivates individuals like myself and other MPs to stand and be vocal on this issue not only inside the chamber but also throughout our communities.

The motion that came from the standing committee reads:

That the [standing] committee [on citizenship and immigration] report the following to the House: In light of the downing of the Ukrainian International Airlines flight PS 752 by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps—

That is what we often refer to as the IRGC.

—and in light of the killing of Mahsa Amini by the Iranian Guidance Patrol, that the committee demands the government stop issuing visas to all Iranian nationals directly affiliated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard...Iranian Armed Forces, Iranian Guidance Patrol or Iranian Intelligence Organizations and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request a response to the report by the government.

That response is well under way.

Mahsa encapsulated what is so wrong when we contrast Canadian values to what took place between her and those in the Iranian society who support the regime that is currently in place. We see how wrong it is.

The downing of the Ukrainian airline touched Canada, as I made reference to, in a very profound way and to me, personally. Kourosh is a dear friend whom I have been meeting at the local McDonald's on occasion. He has actually met many parliamentarians because of his former role in the real estate industry. He would make presentations to members of Parliament. Kourosh's wife was on the plane that went down and, like many other victims' families, he faced the horrors of the downing of that plane.

I think it is important that the Prime Minister appointed the former minister of finance Ralph Goodale to investigate the situation. We wanted to ensure a sense of accountability for that tragedy. We also worked with other governments, such as Ukraine, where the flight was headed. It was a Ukrainian international flight.

The effect of the lives of those who passed away on the lives of those here in Canada is so profound. When we look at the achievements of those individuals in a relatively short time span here in Canada, they made incredible contributions. I like to think that members, no matter what side of the House one sits on, along with the broader community that follows what is taking place in Iran virtually on a daily basis, can imagine and provide sympathy for those victims.

Our Iranian community is large and it is very much interested and tuned in to the issue. That is why I take offence when someone in the chamber accuses the government or myself of not having a high priority in regard to this issue because nothing could be further from the truth. The government and its ministers have been following what is taking place in Iran very closely, and it is taking appropriate actions where it can in dealing with the Iranian regime.

Where I challenge opposition members is on the manner in which they feel that they can declare that an issue of urgent importance be used as a tool as opposed to a legitimate debate. The Conservatives will stand up today and reflect on this issue, as opposed to talking about the important domestic issue of the digital charter and the protection of personal information.

I raised that because the Conservatives will criticize the Liberals for not allowing enough time for debate on Bill C-27 if the government needs to bring in any form of time allocation in order to get the bill through. Unfortunately, this issue today is no more a priority for the Conservative Party than it was last week when it completely ignored the issue when it had an opposition day motion.

Today it is only important because it wants to disrupt the government agenda. It is an agenda that deals with personal information on the Internet. It is something I know of first-hand. We are often asked to bring concerns from our constituencies here to Ottawa, and we do believe that within our caucus.

I can assure members that there is a genuine concern about information that is being collected on the Internet. I feel that the Conservatives taking away from that debate today does a disservice to those who are concerned about how the Internet collects data. Bill C-27 should be going to committee at the very least.

All one needs to do is look at the government's agenda. We have a budget this afternoon and there will be budget debates. We have other legislation, and the Conservatives know it is a very aggressive legislative agenda. It will cause us to continue, as we did last night, whether the Conservatives want to or not. As long as there are other parties that understand the importance of having that debate, we will have to sit later.

I want to conclude by talking about the debate on Bill C-41 yesterday. It is substantial legislation that would ensure there is ongoing humanitarian aid to countries like Iran and other countries. It is for those in the Iranian communities to know and understand that the Government of Canada, through its ministries, is following what is taking place in Iran and it is taking actions that will make a difference. We want to keep our Iranian communities not only safe but also feeling safe.

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

Madam Speaker, here we go again. We have the Conservative Party of Canada playing that destructive role here on the floor of the House of Commons, and it is intentionally done. Those who might tune in and try to follow the debate would think that today is about talking about what, I would argue, is a very serious issue. There is absolutely no doubt. There is not one Liberal member of Parliament who would question the importance of the issue the Conservatives have brought forward today.

Ever since the downing of the Ukrainian airline when Canadians on board were killed, in January 2020, I believe, there has been a ratcheting up of public awareness here in Canada of some of the horrible things that were taking place in Iran. Canadians were very sympathetic even before then, but that particular incident, I think, created a great deal of publicity about it that Canadians could really identify with.

There is no question that it is an important issue. I want to make that very clear. It is an important issue. Is it a priority? Of course it is a priority.

There are many issues around the world that Canada contributes to. Just yesterday, we were talking about Bill C-41, substantial legislation that has the support of all members of the House, as far as I can tell. After a few hours of debate in the chamber, it was unanimously agreed that we should advance it to committee. The core and purpose of that legislation is in recognizing the values of Canadians by saying we have an important humanitarian role to play abroad.

If people listened to the debate that took place yesterday, they heard us talk a great deal about Afghanistan and many of the terrible things happening there today. The legislation is actually broader than just Afghanistan. The principles being talked about, even though Afghanistan was the focus, were in regard to how Canada is going to be able to advance humanitarian aid to countries like Afghanistan where there are terrorists and terrorists causing actions.

The government does not need to be told these are important issues. Canada as a nation plays a very strong role in terms of its presence on the world scene. We often punch well above our weight. The legislation we unanimously supported yesterday to go to committee amplifies that.

There is a limited amount of time to debate in the House of Commons. The Conservatives know that and they know full well that that is the case. They are using this particular concurrence report, as they have done previously, to say this is an important issue. No one is talking about it not being an important issue.

If it were up to the Conservatives, they would have a concurrence report every day to prevent the government from being able to speak.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his good question. Some terrorist groups are listed in the Criminal Code. What we are asking and what Parliament asked in 2018 is to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization. That simply involves adding this organization to the Criminal Code so that it cannot cross our borders or fundraise in our country.

It is possible to amend the act. We already have examples, in the House, of bills that were proposed by the government, such as Bill C‑41, that changed the way the system and the government agencies work in terms of terrorist organizations. If the government had any integrity or interest in taking such action, it would have done so already.

Criminal Code

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

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

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

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