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.

Foreign Affairs

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, in June of last year, Bill C-41, which created a humanitarian exception as an authorization regime, was passed. The new legislation facilitates Canada's engagement to address humanitarian crises and advance human rights globally while also ensuring strong counterterrorism financing provisions. There is no doubt that any delays on such an important matter are frustrating for all of us. We are hopeful that this will launch in the near future.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, It has been three years since Kabul fell, and for Afghans life gets worse every day. Canadians want to help Afghans living under the horrific Taliban rule, but the Canadian government is getting in the way. The flawed bill that the Liberals passed a year ago, Bill C-41, has not been implemented. There has been no guidance and no funding for any Canadian organization, nothing.

As Afghan girls face gender apartheid and as people starve, the incompetence of the Liberals is staggering. Why is the government delaying the much-needed aid to save lives?

Bill C-41

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

Madam Speaker, Liberal government incompetence is undermining the ability of Canadian development organizations to support the world's most vulnerable people. Afghanistan and other terrorist-controlled areas in the world are often among the poorest. Canadian tax dollars go to large UN-affiliated multilateral organizations present in these areas, but private Canadian organizations are generally barred from working in the same areas.

Recognizing this problem, MPs from all parties came together more than a year ago to negotiate, amend and then adopt Bill C-41. It was not perfect, but the bill created an authorization regime to allow private organizations to go to work in these hard-hit areas. We understood the urgency of getting assistance to Afghanistan before another winter.

Unbelievably, the Liberals have failed to implement the bill for over a year. There are no authorizations and no applications, and there is no help. What a disgrace. The bill had a one-year review deadline, but after a year there is literally nothing to review. This probably will not make the headlines, but people on the other side of the world will die because Liberal government incompetence blocked private development assistance from getting to them.

Justice and Human Rights

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do believe I spoke quite extensively during my speech about how Bill C-41 has failed women and girls in Afghanistan. I also spoke about the low ODA, or official development assistance, and how that has failed.

One thing I would also bring up is that we debated this in June. This is an issue the Conservatives are simply bringing up because they want to distract from what the House had on its schedule and was going to be working on. They can put a million concurrence debates up before the House and, frankly, none of them will actually move forward the agenda Canadians have asked us to come here to do.

We did this debate. We have already talked about this. I am more than happy to talk about international development, and the member is right, this did give me an opportunity to talk about my very favourite subject of all, which is human rights in Canada and around the world, particularly the rights of women and girls.

If they really wanted to support women and girls in Afghanistan, around the world and in Canada, they would not have voted against those supports for women and girls. They would not have voted against supports for the gender equity work being done. They would not have voted against foreign affairs being cut. They would not have run in the 2019 election on the 25% cut to development.

They are not who they are trying to make themselves out to be today. It is very clear to me they want to be seen as something their voting record proves they are not.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, frankly, I was on the foreign affairs committee when that witness came, so I can be very clear on that, certainly.

I want to talk about international humanitarian law. We were talking about the fact that international humanitarian law means that Bill C-41 was bad legislation that was unnecessary. Sometimes we forget in this place how important it is that Canada apply international law equally around the world. It is really important because it is our reputation at stake. It is what gives us the moral ability to talk to other countries and demand better of them. Right now, we are not applying international humanitarian law or international law equally. I will give a perfect example. Right now, the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois Party and, of course, the NDP are very supportive of Ukraine. I am delighted that Canada is playing such a key role in ensuring that humanitarian law is protected in that circumstance. We are using the tools that we have through the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice to ensure that Russia, which is an occupying force, is held responsible for the crimes it commits.

One of the interesting things about the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice is that they are unbiased and look at crimes committed by both sides. That is really key. They are entities that are able to use non-violent ways of resolving conflicts, and that is an important thing that we have, as a globe. However, the International Criminal Court wants, and has asked the International Court of Justice, to undertake an investigation of the crimes that are currently happening and that have happened in Israel and Palestine, and Canada is playing a spoiler in that situation. From my perspective, there is not a soul in this place who is not absolutely horrified and appalled by what Hamas did on October 7. It is a terrorist group, full stop, and the hostages it has must be released immediately, but the Government of Israel is a government, and it and Netanyahu need to be held to a different standard than a terrorist organization is. What we need to make sure we see is that the people committing crimes, on either side of the conflict, are held responsible for those crimes.

What we need more than anything, which I think no one here is going to be surprised to hear me say, is a ceasefire so the 18,000 people who have already died, the majority of them women, children and babies, are not asked to pay the price for the terrorist organization that is Hamas. When Canada applies international law standards differently, and when it looks different in Ukraine than it does in Palestine, what do members think the rest of the world sees? What do they think the world sees from Canada, and how do members think we will respond? When we pick and choose human rights, pick and choose when to apply international humanitarian law and change the channel when it is inconvenient for us, that is not the Canada we need to be. Canada needs to be so much better than that.

I look at the situation we have seen in Yemen. I know it started under Stephen Harper, but, frankly, it has been eight years, which we have heard time and time again, and the Liberals have not fixed it. Why are we still sending arms to a country that is using them on civilians? Last week at the foreign affairs committee, I asked whether we even know whether any Canadian arms are being used in Gaza, and we do not know.

We have to do better. Canada has to do better. We have to have higher standards. We have to get back to that place where we punch above our weight. We are the country that is standing up for democracy and for international law. We stand up for human rights regardless of where one is, what colour one is and what religion one practices. These are the values that Canadians expect from their government and their parliamentarians, so we need to do more.

We need to do so much more for Afghanistan, but this charade the Conservatives have brought forward is a distraction. They are trying to change the channel. I want every one of the Conservatives over there to look in the mirror and ask themselves, if they ever become government or, would they cut foreign aid and cut supports for women and girls in Afghanistan. If there is even a spark of a chance that will happen, I want every single one of them to sit down and stop talking.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to stand in this place and represent the good people of Edmonton Strathcona.

This is a concurrence debate. We were unaware that this was coming, and so I am going to talk a little bit from the heart and tell members a few of the things that I have been thinking about, now knowing that we are to debate this motion.

As we all know in this place, in 2021, Kabul fell and the Taliban took over Afghanistan. I do not think that any one of us can really understand the horrific consequences that had on women and girls in Afghanistan and what that shift, that change, means to women and girls in Afghanistan who had been given hope for so many years, because there was the possibility for them to go to school, and for them to be teachers, doctors, lawyers or members of Parliament. The women were able to participate in their culture and their country, but in 2021, that was all taken away from them.

I have been working with members across the floor. The member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound mentioned earlier that we have a cross-party group that is trying desperately to help some of those women MPs get to safety. It is unbearable how slow it is. One of the worst days I have had as a parliamentarian was waking up and finding out that one of those members of Parliament had been murdered. I know that the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound feels the same as me. I know that all of us in this place are absolutely horrified that these people have not been able to be brought to safety, and so we are continuing to work with civil society, and we are continuing to work across aisles to make sure that we can bring these women to safety.

I also want to tell a bit of a positive story as well, because we often talk about women and girls in Afghanistan and the burden, trauma and absolute horror that they are facing. It has literally been described as one of the worst places on earth to be female. When I am in my riding I like to talk to classes. I think talking to students about democracy and how to be involved in democracy is very important. I think it is a big part of my job. I was a teacher before I was a politician. I was talking to a grade 6 class about how devastating it is that education had been taken away from women and girls in Afghanistan, and a little girl in the front row put up her hand and told me that she was from Afghanistan. She had gotten out of Afghanistan and come to Canada. She was in the front row, and she was studying. She was in school, and she was learning. It is stuff like this that makes me think that we have to fight so much harder.

I have a dear driver, a lovely guy, and his daughter is from Afghanistan. She came to the House last week and spent some time with us here. She sat and watched question period. I hope we were all behaving, although I must say I doubt it. However, it is a pretty important thing to know that there are girls and women from Afghanistan who are getting that education. It means a lot to me.

I do think that it is important that this place be seized with what we can do to help women and girls in Afghanistan. I do think that it is important that we talk about foreign issues and that we talk about humanitarian support. Canada is not playing the meaningful role it needs to play. We have not lived up to our obligations. We have not lived up to our reputation. We have not lived up to what we should do. Our ODA is extraordinarily low.

We are really good at saying things like “We have a feminist international assistance policy”, but we are not very good at actually implementing it. This government loves to tap its chest and say that it is a feminist government. In fact, government members keep telling us that there is a feminist foreign policy, although nobody has ever seen it.

The fact of the matter is, if we are going to be a country with a feminist international assistance policy, which I fully support and in fact I helped write the policy before I was elected, then we need to stand up for women and girls, and that does not just mean in concurrence debates. It does not just mean that when the MP for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan decides he wants to mess with what is going on in the House he can call a concurrence debate and cry crocodile tears for Afghan women and girls.

He did not vote last week to support international development spending; he voted three times to not support international development spending. The Conservative members voted three times to not provide support for women and girls around the world. Folks have been talking to us today about the reproductive rights of women and girls. We know that, under Stephen Harper, the Conservatives cut that completely out of international development funding. I can tell the House something right now: When support for abortion is cut, it does not stop abortion; it stops safe abortion, and people die.

When I asked to do a study on women's rights in the international human rights subcommittee, the Conservative member from Peace River who sits on the committee said he was not interested in doing a study on the rights of women but would be more than happy to do a study on the rights of the preborn, not women who have been born, not women who are in our world who are struggling, but the preborn.

We all know what this is about; it is about the Conservatives' trying to change the channel from their appalling voting record. It is all about the fact that they are trying to change the channel from the fact that they voted against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, voted against Operation Unifier and voted against support for Ukraine. My goodness, Conservatives voted against the human rights museum. Honestly, who does that?

I was at home this weekend. It was my son's 16th birthday, and I would like to have the indulgence of the House to wish my son a very happy 16th birthday. I was sitting with my family, and members may be surprised to learn that my family is very non-political. None of them can really understand why they have a member of Parliament in the family. We are not one of those families. They all asked me about the nonsense in the House. They wanted to know what that nonsense was, when members had to sit here for 30 hours. I told them they would not believe it, but it cost $2 million for the Conservatives to do the little fundraising kerfuffle that they thought was so important. They asked me whether the Conservatives thought it was a good use of time and whether they thought it was what Canadians want from their politicians. Today is a great day for me, because New Democrats got dental care for Canadians. The Conservatives got a concurrence debate on an issue that their voting record shows they do not even care about. There is where we are at, folks.

Let us talk a little about some of the issues with regard to Afghanistan. I can talk about international development, foreign affairs and international humanitarian law all day, and I am happy to do it. At the initial time when we heard we were doing a concurrence debate, it was going to be about Bill C-41, or the aid to Afghanistan bill. Of course, the Conservatives must have made a mistake, because they do not actually care what they are bringing forward to the House. They are just trying to come up with something they could throw up as a shield. They got the wrong bill and the wrong concurrence motion. Then we had to sort of change direction a little. However, since they had initially wanted us to talk about Bill C-41, I am game. I am keen to talk about Bill C-41, which the NDP could not support. We were the only party in the House that did not vote for the bill, because it was such a flawed piece of legislation.

Let me explain a little. International humanitarian law exists in the world, and it is very clear that organizations working on international humanitarian efforts have certain protections so they can do that work. These are the people we ask to go into the world, into the most dangerous, most heartbreaking situations that we have on the globe. They do that so they can bring food, shelter and life-saving humanitarian aid. There are international humanitarian law standards in place. Instead of using those standards the way that Australia, Europe, the U.S. and all sorts of countries did, the Liberal government found a weird convoluted route whereby it was kind of like one had to opt out. One is a terrorist until one opts out; this is basically how it works. One has to get a special pass to give humanitarian assistance.

We were able to get some carve-outs through the legislation. We were able to get some of that to work, but I sat in the committee meetings and can tell members that the people who wrote the legislation, and the members of those committees, do not understand how international development works. It does not happen in a sterile environment. It does not start on day one and end on day 12. It is not as definable as that.

The legislation that was put in place is very problematic. In fact, an article that came out on the CBC says that aid groups still say that Ottawa is hampering work in Afghanistan. We started asking for the legislation in 2021. It took years for flawed legislation to come forward. I do not know how many times I stood in the House and asked questions about it. The legislation is still not working; it is still not acting properly. Organizations are still not able to deliver the aid. Realistically, if the Conservatives actually cared about the people of Afghanistan and about getting support to Afghans, they would be more concerned about making sure that the legislation is fixed. World Vision's policy director Martin Fischer says that he is “frustrated and bewildered” that the process is taking so long. He says, “It's hard to understand why the machinery of government is having a hard time putting in place what should be a pretty straightforward...process.” The legislation is still not working. The aid is still not getting to Afghanistan.

As I mentioned it earlier, the Liberals, who have the lowest ODA, or official development assistance, that we have ever had in this country and who are abdicating their responsibility under a feminist foreign policy and a feminist international assistance policy, have brought forward legislation that is overly bureaucratic, is overly problematic and does not work. On the other side, we have the Conservatives, who, frankly, if one were to listen to them, probably do not like women very much.

This is where we are at with that. When I talk about—

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

Madam Speaker, it is not easy because, on the one hand, the Liberals are not helping us with Bill C‑41, and on the other hand, we have people who want to cut back on international aid.

Canada currently spends 0.3% of its GDP on international aid. The UN is asking for 0.7% from countries like Canada. The average for OECD countries is around 0.42% or 0.43%.

Right now, under this government, our spending is lower than it was under the Harper government. Back then, it was at 0.32%. The current government is the one that has been the stingiest when it comes to devoting a percentage of its GDP to promoting international human rights.

When my colleague tells me that the Conservatives are not consistent and that they are not credible when they talk about international aid, we need only look at the votes held during those 30 hours. When I talked about Icarus at the beginning of my speech, this is the proof. I now have ammunition. The next time they talk about international aid, I can name all the members who voted against it. They really have no credibility.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to listen to my colleague and hear his thoughts. We are in this place right now having this debate. We were not told that this was coming. This has been a bit of a surprise for us. We are trying to think of ways that we could help the people of Afghanistan. I do not think there is a single person in this place who does not think that we should do everything we possibly can, particularly for the women and girls of Afghanistan.

I have to say, though, that I have the list here of the votes that we had over the 30-some hours that we stayed in the House voting because the Conservative Party thought that was a useful thing to do. While they are here telling us that it is vitally important that we support Afghanistan, three times for millions of dollars they voted against supporting international development and foreign affairs efforts. On one hand they are taking away the money that people in Afghanistan need. In Afghanistan right now, we have people who are severely food insecure, who need help, yet we have the Liberals with Bill C-41 making it very difficult to deliver that aid, and we have the Conservatives literally voting to stop it. In fact, they ran in the last election on cutting foreign aid by 25%. How do—

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

Madam Speaker, maybe I got it wrong after all. Perhaps they did not get enough sleep, if they are raising points of order like that.

As I was saying, the story of Icarus is very interesting. He was so sure of himself that he thought he had come up with an excellent solution, but in the end, he found himself in trouble and landed on his head very quickly.

We saw this again in the 30-odd hours we spent voting. All I saw was a Liberal caucus that had not been united at all since the fall suddenly come together. I saw the ammunition given to the other parties in the House when I looked at exactly who was going to vote on which economic measures. It really reminds me of Icarus.

This brings me to the motion before us today, which also reminds me a little of Icarus. This motion gives me a chance to talk about human rights and what has been discussed in various committees, not only the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, but also the committee that deals with international human rights, specifically, the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development and the Special Committee on Afghanistan. Human rights have been discussed extensively. That topic was the foundation of all the conversations we had in those committees.

I want to come back once again to one of the first decisions the Leader of the Opposition made when he was elected leader of the Conservative Party. The decision had to do with human rights. How did I come to that conclusion? It was easy. As vice-chair of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, I saw the change in the Conservative membership of that committee following the election of the Conservative leader, the member for Carleton. Suddenly, I saw the member for Peace River—Westlock become vice-chair of the subcommittee. I looked into him because I like to be thorough in my work. I want to know my new committee colleagues. I did my research and I realized to my astonishment and disappointment, but mostly astonishment, that the member had made a live video just after getting off a plane, when he found out that the U.S. Supreme Court had overturned Roe v. Wade, making access to abortion in the United States more difficult and, in some cases, a criminal offence. This is what I was asking my Liberal colleague about just now. The Conservative member applauded that ruling and said, in that same video, that access to abortion was the worst human rights tragedy in Canada.

Here I am, faced with a person who is entitled to his opinions, but I know full well that they are light years away from Quebec's values in terms of abortion access and rights. This member was appointed by the leader of the official opposition to sit on this committee. What is more, the leader made him what he calls his shadow minister, meaning the opposition's critic on the matter. That means that if the Conservative Party had come to power, this guy could probably and possibly have ended up either as minister for international aid and development or as parliamentary secretary. This is a guy who says that access to abortion is the worst human rights tragedy in Canada. That is important.

I want to come back to this motion telling us that we need to talk about human rights. Of course everyone agrees with that. I will read it:

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.

No one is raising their hand to say they disagree. I will continue:

In particular, the committee denounces the Taliban system of gender discrimination...

Now maybe a Conservative MP will stand up and oppose the motion.

No? Good. I will continue:

...systemic violence targeting minority communities...

No one has anything to say about that either? All right then.

...reprisals against former members of the Afghan National Security and Defence Forces, 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.

We are going to spend three hours debating this response and the tabling of the report by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, even though everyone is in agreement.

I mentioned Icarus. Unfortunately, they are bringing about their own downfall. I have to talk about human rights in connection with a motion that everyone agrees on. I have no choice but to continue. This will take however long it takes, because that is how they want it. It was quite a job just to find out which committee report we were going to talk about today. As I said, there may be a minor breakdown in professionalism. That is so unlike them. I am not sure what is going on. Maybe they feel like they made a big mistake last week and that they keep making more. That is overconfidence. Overconfidence is always dangerous in life, whether at work or in sport. I have played team sports, and I can vouch for the fact that overconfidence is very dangerous. In the end, it can cost the team the game. However, I do not want to go overboard in giving advice. I will leave them to reflect on their own behaviour.

This report from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights does contain something worthwhile. It is important to note that this is a result of what happened on the Special Committee on Afghanistan. When the committee began its work, we quickly realized that Canadian humanitarian organizations were unable to do their work because they were violating Canada's Criminal Code. I asked a non-governmental organization, or NGO, about that for the first time on February 7, 2022. I was told that, because the Criminal Code prohibits the funding of terrorism, which is a good thing, Canadian NGOs were unable to send humanitarian aid, such as medication and food, to vulnerable populations. The Criminal Code made it difficult to send such aid.

We set about putting pressure on the Liberal government. On that point, I should mention that I had a lot of help from the opposition parties, the NDP and the Conservative Party, to put pressure on the government, which was far too slow to act. It eventually introduced Bill C-41, which we passed. This legislation is not perfect; in fact, it is quite imperfect. I found this out last week during a committee meeting, when I asked NGO representatives about it. They told us that it had improved things a little, but that it was far from perfect and that certain aspects of the bill still prevent them from being able to do their work normally.

We talked about this in early February 2022, and the government introduced the bill a year later, in the winter of 2023. It was still at committee in the spring. All that happened more than 18 months after the UN had taken action with resolution 2615, which called for countries to amend their criminal codes so they could send humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, and to adapt their laws accordingly. That UN motion, as well as the motions we moved in the various committees regarding humanitarian aid and the fundamental rights of vulnerable populations, were effective.

As usual, the Liberal government is very slow to act and sometimes spends too long studying issues. Unfortunately, this is having a real impact on the ground. Some people suffered because Bill C‑41 was not in force. Children died of starvation because humanitarian aid could not be delivered. This was documented in articles in reputable newspapers all over the world. Some families had to sell some of their children because they could not afford to feed them all. They had to sell some of their children, even though Canada had a moral obligation towards these people because it participated in operations in Afghanistan and had direct ties with Afghan interpreters, members of the Afghan security forces, and politicians in Afghanistan, especially women politicians. Canada had created programs to help women successfully participate in politics in Afghanistan.

Canada ensured that women can get involved in democratic public discourse in Afghanistan. When Canada left, it left these women to fend for themselves. They had to face the Taliban. If there is one thing that upsets the Taliban, it is a woman who stands up and takes part in democratic debate in her own country.

I think the Taliban's biggest fear is to see a woman become empowered and participate in democratic debate in Afghanistan. To the Taliban, that is the devil incarnate.

Canada had a moral duty to these people and it did not live up to that duty. It arrived a year too late with an imperfect bill, which we supported because we believe that a step forward is always good for the people that will benefit. However, this is not right. Canada is neither an economic nor military power. Canada has a history of leadership in international human rights. That is coming from a Quebec sovereignist. I am thinking of Lester B. Pearson's peacekeepers. To be fair to my Conservative friends, I will also mention Brian Mulroney, who contributed to the fall of the apartheid regime.

These things happened. Let us also consider Jean Chrétien, who had a major impact on friendly countries in Africa. That is part of Canada's history. I imagine that these actions were largely driven by the values of Quebeckers, or I hope so. We have always been there. Humanitarianism started in Quebec, and Canada followed suit. So much the better if we can lead our Canadian friends in the right direction. We do it often. The child care system is just one example. I am not saying that Quebeckers are better than Canadians. No one is better or worse; we are simply different. That seems the best way to put it.

The only thing I held against my friend Jean Chrétien was the fact that he would say that Canada was “the bestest country in the world”. What country is second best, sixth best or eighth best? I do not know. I think there is no such thing as a best or worst people, a best or worst country. There are only different countries. Quebec is one of them and, one day, it will have everything it needs to become an independent nation. Perhaps I am getting off topic. Maybe it is because my Conservative friends added to the confusion today about the various motions we had to debate. I think it has affected me. I have to speak about a motion for 20 minutes when I only learned I had to talk about the motion two minutes before I took the floor.

Everyone agrees that we cannot let the Taliban continue to ensure that human rights are not upheld in Afghanistan. We cannot allow our humanitarian organizations, our NGOs, not to help them. That sums up what was said in the various committees, including the justice committee. Yes, we must keep the Taliban on the list of terrorist entities, and we must also allow our NGOs to deliver humanitarian aid on the ground there, because they know the ground, they have contacts and, above all, they have a big heart and want to help people. We can only applaud them for that. They need more support, and Canada should give them more. The government should give them more. They should not be overjoyed when access to abortion is restricted.

I will now be pleased to answer my colleagues' questions.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

June 19, 2023

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 19th day of June, 2023, at 11:47 a.m.

Yours sincerely,

Christine MacIntyre

Deputy Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill S-246, An Act respecting Lebanese Heritage Month; Bill C-41, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts; Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts; and Bill C-45, An Act to amend the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts, and to make a clarification relating to another Act

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the debate that we have been having in the House on this issue. The one issue that I keep hearing from the Bloc members is that we need to have consensus. However, I reflect on the fact that on Monday of this week, there was not a single vote in which fewer than 50% of the Bloc members used their voting app. As a matter of fact, when we voted on Bill C-41, 80% of the Bloc members used their voting app. When we voted on their own motion about climate change, 50% of the Bloc members used it.

Would the House leader not agree that consensus is pretty well established, given the participation in using the application?

Government Business No. 26—Amendments to the Standing Orders

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to apologize to the member. We were chuckling while he was speaking, but it was not for anything he was saying. It was just for the rich and incredible irony that we were hearing oohs out of that side of the House of Commons, because it was only a short three sitting days ago that the member spoke in the House on Bill C-41 by giving a virtual speech through Zoom. I am assuming he had good reason not to be in the chamber to do that and there was a really good reason he needed to do it by Zoom, and that is what put him in the position to not be able to be here physically.

The reality is that, from time to time, all members of this House need the ability to do that. Would the member like to address our concern over his hypocrisy for his speech about needing to be in the House as a member of Parliament when he delivered a full speech on Bill C-41 on Friday on Zoom?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to such an important piece of government business on the hybrid system we have adopted and have been using in the House over the last number of years.

In some of the last discourse, we heard from Conservative members in an exchange that came from a question from the NDP about members not using the technology and tools we have in place for the right purpose. This is given that we witnessed just days ago the abuse of hybrid Parliament, whether it was on Zoom or with the voting application, and the manner that was utilized by Conservatives to delay the vote and use it as a procedural tool.

We saw Conservatives who were voting and coming online through Zoom, and it was obvious they were sitting in the opposition lobby or perhaps had the beautiful stonework behind them from this place. They were doing this intentionally for the purpose of delaying the House. Why was that so obvious? The only members who seemed to have problems from a technical perspective at the time were Conservatives, so it was pretty clear there was an abuse of the system.

Therefore, I would tend to agree with Conservatives when they say that we need to ensure that the system and the tools we have are not abused. I think that we saw a lot of that on those two particular days. I think it was a Friday and a Monday when we saw that happening.

Nonetheless, I reflect on just some of the most recent votes. On Monday, June 12, which was just yesterday, we had a vote that was related to Bill C-33, where 70% of my Bloc colleagues and 66% of my Conservative colleagues used the voting app, according to the records that we have. When Conservatives talk about having consensus to use the hybrid Parliament, I would suggest to them that consensus comes through their basic agreement with and use of the technology.

Also on Monday, we had a number of other motions. We had the Bloc opposition motion, and 50% of the Bloc members, on their own motion, used the app to vote when we voted on that yesterday. Clearly the Bloc members favour using this technology that we have, given the fact that half of them, one out of every two Bloc members, used the app to vote on their own motion just yesterday, while 36% of Conservatives used it.

When we had Bill C-35 at report stage, 74% of Bloc members, almost three out of every four of them, used the voting application that we have adopted. Therefore, when the Bloc members get up, as I have heard them do both yesterday and today, to say we should be doing things based on consensus, I think that we have consensus is pretty darn clear when they are using the technology to the fullest of its ability.

We should be concerned that Bloc members might not be in the House, but it even gets worse than that. By the third reading and adoption of Bill C-41, 80% of Bloc members used the voting app. That is four out of every five of them. I do not think that we need consensus from the Bloc members that this is a good tool. They seem to be using it in great earnest.

It goes on. The Conservatives, although their percentages are much better, have been using the application and the tools just as much as everybody else.

I am reminded of just very recently when a Conservative member, a new mother who had just given birth days before, was participating in a House of Commons debate while holding her newborn. I remember it very well because she was speaking softly, and I remember that feeling of having a newborn, especially when they are sleeping, and wanting to let them sleep because we know what it is like when they are not sleeping. The member was speaking softly while sitting in her kitchen. The lights were dimmed, and she did not want to wake the baby. She was giving a passionate speech. I thought to myself, “Wow, look how far we have come in the short period of time since we started bringing on these new provisions.”

We have a new mother who is able to participate in a House of Commons debate literally days after giving birth. Let us imagine trying to convince people in this place 100 years ago that this would one day be the reality, or even 10 years ago, or even just five years ago. The idea would have been foreign.

As a society and as a country, we go through experiences. We went through a horrible experience in the pandemic. A lot of people suffered. There was a lot of financial hardship. There were a lot of people who, emotionally and from a mental health perspective, really struggled, but I think that we also have to realize that we discovered things and perhaps came across opportunities during the pandemic that could improve the quality of life for people who wish to be part of this process.

This House is not what it was decades ago. This is not a House filled just with male lawyers. Let us be honest: When this House was first established, it was lawyers and it was men, and that was it. Over the years, we have seen that evolve. My predecessor was a scientist, Ted Hsu, who came to this place. We have seen other people come here who were activists or people who were really passionate about certain fields of work and who did not particularly fall into that mould of what a parliamentarian used to be.

As my NDP colleague pointed out in a question that she asked about the under-representation of women in this place, she is absolutely correct. I am trusting that her number of only 30% of the members in this place are women is accurate. How do we get that to a better place?

It is funny. I had dinner this evening with a senator, and we had a really interesting conversation. He was commenting to me that he believes the Senate has changed so much because half of the senators are women. He said it brings a certain decorum to the place, and that the decorum might be from the fact that those who are not being more collegial and using decorum are highlighted. I would be the first to point out, as already happened today, that I am not by any means putting myself in the category of those who always demonstrate great decorum.

I do not want to get off the very important point here. The point is that we need to create a place that does not just represent Canadians. I know the former answer to a question from a Conservative was that this place does represent Canadians. Well, it might represent Canadians in the sense that there is a mix of different backgrounds, but I do not know if it genuinely represents Canadians in terms of gender parity. I think that in particular there is an impediment to many women who have to make the decision of whether they want to get into this line of work, given that it requires so much time in Ottawa.

When we look at the tools that we have been able to develop, test and rely on confidently during the pandemic, why would we not take those tools, if we see them as a way to make this place more suitable, to better represent Canadians, including and in particular as it relates to a gender balance in this House?

I have heard some of the arguments against this. I have been listening and following the debate. I think I have addressed the Bloc's concern over consensus. I hear the concern that comes quite a bit from my Conservative colleagues. I heard the Conservative House leader say that they would be in support of all of this if there was a sunset clause. The way he described it was that one year after the next election, we would have to review and then make a decision on whether or not to move forward. He is trying to phrase it so that rather than making a decision about getting rid of it, we would have to make the decision about keeping it.

I would say that is a nuance. Whether the government of the day wants to bring forward a new motion to change the Standing Orders back to the way they were or whether the government of the day brings forward a motion to keep the Standing Orders as they are, the point is irrelevant. It is going to be exactly the same debate that takes place.

People's positions on things would be pretty much the same. I do not think they would particularly change. The important thing is that I do not think it should be a deal breaker for anybody that would make them just say they cannot support this because they really wanted a sunset clause.

This is my personal opinion. I preface it by saying that it is my opinion. I certainly do not know this to be fact. I would say probably the majority of Conservatives like the tools that we have. They certainly use them a lot, as do my Bloc colleagues. I think this is a bit of partisanship. I think this is about positioning oneself and positioning a particular party to try to put a narrative in place that people are not working, to say that when they go back home, they are not really working and doing their work.

From listening to the speech from the House leader for the government yesterday, we know that anybody who is in this job is working 24-7. When members walk into a store in their riding, how often does somebody bump into them and want to talk to them? Then they are working. That happens all the time.

This is not a nine-to-five job. We will be here until at least 1:00 a.m. tonight, and that is fine. That is part of the job. I think we all accept that, and I certainly accept it. If we can put tools in place to make it even more inclusive, I think we should be doing that.

In preparation for this speech, I was looking back at some references in Hansard for this Parliament. I reflect back to March 28, when my Conservative colleague, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot, was giving his speech. If I have this correct, it was from a city council chamber in his riding. He was commuting to the airport to come here, presumably. He wanted to give his speech and was able to set up a temporary spot to give his speech from a city council chamber. He said:

As we know as members of Parliament, things can change and develop quickly in this job. This has led me to be making a speech from a bit of a unique location. Having seemingly come down with the flu over the weekend, I was delayed in my return to our nation's capital. As a result, I was not able to get on my Sunday afternoon flight, which is my normal commute. Therefore, if you would indulge me, Madam Speaker, I am in a unique location that I would like to highlight.

I am giving my speech from another chamber, actually: the town council chambers of the community of Drumheller. This is the second-largest community in Battle River—Crowfoot in this beautiful area of east central Alberta, and I am proud to represent it.

He goes on after that. I am not saying this in any way to say, “See, I told you so. You love hybrid Parliament and you are using it.” I am bringing it to everyone's attention because I think it is unique and important that the member was able to participate. He clearly could not come to Ottawa because of an illness. When he got better, he was on his way here, but he really wanted to participate in debate and made other accommodations to be able to do that.

As much as this motion about adopting a hybrid Parliament might be able helping a newborn's mother participate, it is also about helping people who have come down with an illness, who are on the mend and who might be on their way to Ottawa, as was the case with this individual. On Friday of last week, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan gave a virtual speech on Bill C-41. He is another Conservative colleague of mine.

What I am trying to point out is that we are all using this technology. We all see the benefit in the technology, and it is genuinely allowing us to participate in debate when we otherwise may have been limited. Most of us in this chamber, especially those elected in 2015 and after 2019, know what it was like to not be able to do that. This has given much more opportunity for people to participate by providing another way to participate. We do not have to physically be here. I think it is worth keeping in that regard.

I heard a criticism from a Conservative who spoke before me. It was specifically about accountability, and I heard his comments about accountability in two regards.

In the first regard, he spoke about accountability in terms of ministers answering questions. I know I heard him say that he was speaking specifically about accountability as it related to ministers speaking on Zoom to a committee. However, I do not think that is appropriate, and I can tell members that on this side of the House, and it should be quite obvious from question period every day, no minister answers a question on the screen. No minister answers a question virtually. If a minister cannot be present here in question period, a parliamentary secretary or another minister answers the question. That is not a rule established anywhere, but it is certainly a rule that the leadership on this side of the House has put in place in order to preserve that accountability. Question period is probably the part of the proceedings here that the public watches the most, and certainly that is the time that there has to actually be a physical presence in the House.

The other area of accountability the member mentioned is accountability in terms of individuals who are participating by Zoom in a committee and whether or not they are accountable. Well, we are accountable: We are accountable to the individuals who send us here. If the individuals determine that we are not doing an effective job, they will stop sending us here. We are accountable because we will go into an election at least once every four years.

No two MPs, in my opinion, approach this job in exactly the same way. Everybody develops their approach to the job in how they deal with constituents, how they deal with casework, how they deal with the House proceedings and with committee, how they deal with everything in the spectrum. If our electorate decides “Hey, you have not done a good job in terms of how you are handling your participation and how you are representing us”, it is up to them to hold us accountable. It is up to them to decide if they want us or somebody else. In that regard, I certainly believe that we are accountable. I think we will always have that accountability to people.

We are not like the Senate; senators are appointed, and they are appointed for a set period of time. We have to go back to our electorate on a regular basis and ask for their continued support. That is really, in my opinion, the most important thing.

In conclusion, I want to reiterate that I think this is a good motion. I do not believe that putting a sunset clause on this motion can be a deal breaker. It is just as easy for a future government, after the next election, to say that it does not want this and that this is how it should be done.

I also do not believe that the Bloc is against this motion, based on the fact that there is no consensus. Its members have by far, as a percentage of the political parties, used the voting application the most. They clearly enjoy using it, and I think that if the motion does not pass, many of them would probably be upset that we were not going to continue using it.

I will certainly be supporting this motion. I think it is a way to get so many more people interested in this place and to get so many more people to put their names forward. It is a way to continue to build on the diversity in this House, and particularly, in my opinion, to build on the kind of diversity that will bring us closer to a gender balance.

Motion in Amendment

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

Madam Speaker, as I said, the best time to speak is just before oral question period.

What I was saying is that Quebeckers and Canadians want our country to continue welcoming people fleeing repression or intolerable humanitarian crises. I would like to think that this is the context for Bill S‑8, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to make consequential amendments to other acts and to amend the immigration and refugee protection regulations.

Bill S‑8 is currently at third reading and has been studied and amended by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs. I had the opportunity to replace my Bloc Québécois colleague from Montarville on that committee and to work with my colleagues from other parties.

Members know that I am among those who believe that, despite differing ideas and political visions, most of the time collaboration helps parliamentary work. We witnessed that recently once again with Bill C‑41. It also demonstrates that despite sometimes having different, and even diametrically opposed, positions, we can work together and get things done. Our work is to find common ground. Everyone knows that politics is the art of compromise.

In short, it is this teamwork that will have helped improve the bill currently before us. I must recognize the remarkable work done by the committee and all the parties that came together to amend Bill S‑8 so that it would not undermine attempts by people who want to escape the war. That was the main objective. Let us not forget that one of the concerns of the organizations was that some people from a sanctioned country might not be able to seek refuge because of the new provisions in this bill.

Bill S‑8 also ensures that Canada meets its international obligations when it comes to welcoming refugees. This means that individuals targeted by a sanctions regime could claim asylum. However, they would not be able to receive permanent resident status as long as they remain targeted by a sanctions regime. Bill S‑8 therefore fixes the problems that were introduced by the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, which prohibited individuals targeted by a sanctions regime to file a claim for refugee protection. It also allows border officers to turn away individuals who would be targeted by a sanctions regime as soon as they arrive.

That correction is in line with the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, which states that only convictions “by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime [or a crime which] constitutes a danger to the community of that country” are sufficient grounds to remove a refugee from the country or deny them entry. I sense that people are interested in what I am saying.

The bill also now includes a provision that requires it to be reviewed after three years to determine its effectiveness, which is excellent news. That is a fine amendment that will enable us to make changes to the bill, if ever it were to have undesirable effects on certain refugee groups.

In short, it is a good bill that was improved by my colleagues from all parties in order to remedy the situation for certain asylum seekers. This bill will assure those who are fleeing war, corruption and oppression that it is indeed they that we intend to protect from armed conflicts, not those who instigate such conflicts. Those who violate human rights are not welcome in Quebec and Canada. In solidarity with our allies and out of aversion for warmongering regimes and organizations, the Bloc Québécois invites all parties to unanimously vote in favour of this bill so that Quebec and Canada are and remain welcoming nations for asylum seekers, and not safe havens for criminals.

In closing, I will repeat that we are here to do a job. When parties collaborate and move a bill in the right direction by working together, we, the parliamentarians, are judged by the people we represent. Our constituents must be thinking that, for once, parliamentarians are getting along and working together to improve bills for the well-being of the people of Canada, but also for the well-being of people coming from other countries who would like Canada and Quebec to become their new home.

I congratulate my colleagues once again. I want to highlight their work, and I believe that it should become a good example for other committees. It was a pleasure to rise today just before oral question period.

Justice and Human Rights

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her thoughtful comments.

I can assure the member that this bill has come forward after extensive consultation with and support from the sector that works in Afghanistan and internationally. I am very content that we are going in the right direction. Of course, with every bill that we pass, there are always questions. None is perfect. Bill C-41 is a good compromise that has the broad support of all the parties in this House.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have enjoyed working with my hon. colleague on a number of different things and I want to echo his concerns. I was prepared to debate Bill C-40 today. I think it is very important legislation and something that we really should be discussing at this point.

I also want to go back to some of the discussions the member brought forward with regard to Bill C-41. The member would know that I did not vote in support of this bill for the simple reason that I find that there are some real challenges to this legislation. As much as we were able to work together with members of his party and members of other parties to fix parts of this bill, there are still some really outstanding challenges within the bill that I think make it difficult for civil society organizations and non-profit organizations to work within. It is overly bureaucratic, of course, and has some big challenges on definitions.

One of my big concerns is around the potential for politicization, knowing that a future government could use this legislation to act punitively towards the charitable sector and the international development sector. Does the member have those same concerns? Would he like to comment on that?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am here to speak on the concurrence report with respect to the Taliban.

This afternoon I was very pleased to see Bill C-41 pass in this House. It is a very important bill, one that many people have been working on for several months. Most notably, it is something that the justice committee has been working on for the last several weeks.

I believe Bill C-41 is a very important step toward ensuring that those in Afghanistan are supported through the many incredible aid agencies that work in the region, including organizations that have an international span as well as those that are regional. I think it is an important step toward supporting Afghanistan in this moment.

With respect to the Taliban, I think it is very clear that it is an organization that offends many aspects of human rights. I can enumerate the various challenges the Taliban poses, not just to the people of Afghanistan but also to the world. It is an organization that is brutal in its force. It is one that has summarily killed so many people. It is one that limits access to education for women. It certainly limits dissent of any sort, and by no means is it democratic. For it to form government in Afghanistan is deeply troubling and deeply problematic.

The reasons that the Taliban are there today are historical. In part, it is because the west just left overnight. I think history will judge that as a failure of the western world. In many ways, we can go back in history and say that the region of Afghanistan is one that has been impacted by colonialism over the centuries. In the last 50 or 60 years, it has been impacted by the Cold War. In this particular case, the departure of the United States in August 2021 certainly enabled the Taliban to take hold of Afghanistan and cause it to regress back into an autocratic state that violates the human rights of its citizens.

Canada's response, it is fair to say, has been quite challenging, in part because of the complexity of the government structure in Afghanistan, which limited our ability to bring people out, but I am very pleased to see that the number of Afghans who have been resettled in Canada over time is in excess of 35,000 people. I think it is a remarkable number, given that this is probably the second-highest number of resettlements we have ever done, the first one being the Syrians right after we formed government in 2015.

I would say Canada is among the top countries in the world to resettle so many Afghans. Of course, there are good reasons for that. Apart from the presence of many family members here and the needs of those Afghans who were directly supporting the Government of Canada, there is a humanitarian reason that this type of resettlement is so critical. Resettling 35,000 within a period of under two years is a remarkable achievement. It may not seem fair to those who may be languishing in different parts of the world or those who are struggling to get out and rightfully should be able to come to Canada. It may seem frustrating that we took two years to do that.

I can give some examples. This morning, I had a call with my office. We do a weekly meeting at 9:00 a.m. every Monday to talk about casework. One of the cases approved today was a resettlement of a group of five Tamil refugees. They had been in India for the last 13 years. This application took 13 years to process. That is the nature of many cases in the resettlement process, although Canada is the number one resettlement country in the world for refugees.

Notwithstanding that, it was a 13-year process, and we can understand how difficult it is for people like that to resettle, especially those who are fleeing conflict. While the two-year mark may seem long, in the broader sense, it is important for Canada and our government to achieve. There is no doubt that we will achieve the 40,000 mark as set out by the Minister of Immigration, as he enumerated a number of different times. We have seen people arrive at our airports and planes full of Afghan refugees who have come here and are settled. I have met many over the last two years and I have met family members of my friends who have come here as part of the resettlement. It is fair to say that Canada is doing its part and is doing its part disproportionate to our involvement in Afghanistan. It is the right thing to do, and I certainly support the government's efforts. I want to reiterate that I am deeply offended by the Taliban and all that it stands for.

Having said all of this, this is a concurrence motion that forms part of a report from the justice and human rights committee, one that is five lines and is quite simple. It basically denounces the Taliban regime, the Taliban administration and the Taliban itself. As such, we generally have unanimous consent from all parties on this language that was passed by committee. I certainly hope it does not take us a full four hours to have the debate here. I would suggest at this point that we go on to what was in the Order Paper and debate Bill C-40.

If I may, I will highlight why it is so important that Bill C-40 be debated and passed. It is a priority bill for the government. Over the past 30 years or so, it is an issue that has offended Canadians, which is that those who may be wrongfully convicted are spending time in jail and unfortunately have no recourse, or the recourse that is available through the process of ministerial relief is quite arduous. We know the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada has outlined the frustration he has faced during his tenure as minister in reviewing those cases.

It is important that we debate this bill and ensure the justice and fairness for which Canada is known and ought to be known. One of the reasons that people of all backgrounds come to Canada would be reiterated through the passage of this bill and would ensure that there is an outlet available for people to seek redress when they are wrongfully convicted. This is not about opening the doors—

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

Madam Speaker, this motion deals with the listing of a terrorist organization, the Taliban, and highlights that, in the context of recognizing the need for special provisions to bring in humanitarian assistance, we also need to be firm in denouncing the Taliban. It is saying that, while we want to find ways of getting humanitarian assistance in, the Taliban needs to continue to be a listed terrorist organization.

At the same time, there are other organizations that the House has called on the government to list that it has not listed, and I am thinking particularly of the IRGC. It has been five years since the House voted to list the IRGC. The passage of Bill C-41 may, from the perspective of the government, remove a potential impediment. Is the government open to now moving forward with listing the IRGC as a terrorist organization, as it voted to do five years ago?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time this evening with the member for Scarborough—Rouge Park.

For those who might be tuning in, we are now on a concurrence motion that falls under Routine Proceedings in the House. Conservatives have chosen to put forward a motion that will basically consume about three hours' worth of the debate time today on this particular committee report.

Normally when these come forward, they are for reports that perhaps were contentious or perhaps had a lot of committee disagreement on how to proceed. Usually those end up on the floor of the House and consume about three hours' worth of debate. Then a question is put on the motion.

However, with this particular motion, I do not think that there will be much debate because my understanding is that everybody within the committee agreed to this motion. It is certainly something that seems extremely reasonable. It is something that has come out of the committee. In the interests of those who might be watching, it is the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, specifically on the study of the Taliban regime and human rights. As it is just one or two sentences, I will read the committee report to the House in its entirety. It reads:

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.

As I indicated moments ago, my understanding is that the entire committee voted in favour of this. Now that this has been brought forward as a motion, I anticipate that all members of the House will likely be voting in favour of it. It is even more perplexing, I guess I could say, coming on the heels of the fact that we just voted on Bill C-41, and Bill C-41 is an act to specifically empower the Minister of Public Safety, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of International Development to have the ability to allow funds to flow into Afghanistan, in particular those that are aimed at supporting humanitarian needs and the people who really need those funds.

That is something that passed in the House. We heard the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound say a few moments ago that he thought at times it might go too far, whereas others in the House thought that it did not go far enough. However, it sounds like it was a very collegial discussion and debate, and that a genuine consensus was formed at committee where they could adopt the report but still have this important caveat added to it so it came through as a report from a committee to the House.

I genuinely think that the democratic process was served very well in how this report got to the House. I am a little bit more concerned or confused that we have this motion to concur it in right now, given that we know there was very little disagreement over it, notwithstanding the fact that it is a very important issue. It is also an issue that is very well identified within the report that is being concurred in now.

As we heard a number of discussions about the supports going to the Afghan people, we did just pass Bill C-41. This report basically came to the House at the same time. Bill C-41 is a bill that:

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 put it in context, there is, for obvious good reasons, limits to where public money can flow. In particular, we have very stringent rules around it getting into the hands of those terrorist organizations. We certainly do not ever want to see that happen, but we also respect the fact that there are a number of organizations that are providing humanitarian needs in certain parts of the world that might need to have access to money to support the work they are doing, which genuinely drives that humanitarian effort. This is what Bill C-41 would do, and it was the genesis behind Bill C-41.

I am very pleased to see that the bill passed through the House earlier today. I think it gives us an opportunity to reflect, perhaps, but I hope this does not have to go on for the entire three hours. I will keep my comments short, but I genuinely do believe that we need to move forward with some of the other very important pieces of legislation that we have before the House today. Therefore, I hope that we can come to a conclusion on this particular concurrence motion relatively quickly so that we can move along.

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

Madam Speaker, I totally agree. That is the challenge. To be frank, and I have said this in the House before, I was split on Bill C-41, because I know that some of the money is going to end up in the Taliban's hands. It is the nature of the beast. The world is a complicated place and that is why I actually have concerns with it. I know I disagree with some of my colleagues who have been working on these efforts behind the scenes, who do not think that the bill goes far enough in providing safeguards that the government has put in place.

Ultimately, we do need to do it. That is why I voted in support of it but we need to get that aid in. At the same time, it cannot be getting overly abused and misused. That is the challenge here. It is a messy situation. I really feel we could have done more sooner and I really wish the west had never pulled out completely, because, ultimately, this is an example of where we, as the west, failed. We need to do more in the future.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that this motion was passed at the justice committee, right after we passed Bill C-41, and today we were able to pass that bill here in the House.

I wonder if the hon. member could talk about the importance of getting aid into Afghanistan, because not everybody can leave, and how important it is for that bill to get passed.

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

Madam Speaker, as it relates to the government's management of its legislative calendar, I think that is more a question the member can direct to his House leader. The government can call any bills that it wants at any time during Government Orders.

I understand that the House is going to be sitting until midnight to consider Government Orders. However, we are now in the rubric of motions, where members are able to move motions that are important to them. Clearly, it is important to use that time to move concurrence on committee reports that are important and deserve consideration in the House.

The committee, with the exception of NDP members, agreed on the importance of Bill C-41. It also, in that context, felt it was important to send this message condemning the Taliban, condemning the ongoing violence and emphasizing the need to continue to list it as a terrorist organization.

Therefore, it is important that the House make these two statements: It should state the importance of allowing in humanitarian and other forms of assistance, and it should also recognize that we should not, in any way, legitimize the Taliban's position in Afghanistan.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I note that Bill C-41 passed in this place this afternoon. It is a very important piece of legislation ensuring that aid goes from Canadian sources and agencies to Afghanistan. I want to acknowledge the work of the member opposite on this file.

I also want to question something. Today, when we have the passage of Bill C-41, when I think we are all quite united in condemning the Taliban and all that it stands for, why are we taking valuable House resources away from Bill C-40, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to the miscarriage of justice? It is an act that has been sought by many victims, who have come forward to ask the justice system to respond to their needs.

Why are we spending so much time on something that we all agree on?

[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.

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.

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.

Crisis in Sudan

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Spadina—Fort York.

I thank the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who called for an emergency debate today on the current crisis in Sudan.

As sad as these words are to say and hear, we have to know that civilians are always the first victims of armed conflicts. As I rise to speak in the House, the Sudanese people are being held hostage by two warring factions. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, announced yesterday that the army and the paramilitary groups warring in Sudan had agreed to a three-day ceasefire at the end of 10 days of deadly combat. Shortly afterward, they confirmed a truce to open humanitarian corridors and facilitate the movement of civilians.

Despite a slight lull, the situation for civilians remains unchanged on the 11th day of fighting. The streets are still deserted, military planes are flying over the capital, food shortages continue in the stores, the power is still out in some places, and access to water is becoming increasingly difficult.

Since Sudan became independent in 1956, this country's history has been nothing but a succession of military coups. The current conflict that opposes the two generals is yet another example of that. Foreign interventions have done little but fan the flames of this reciprocal mistrust, actually sparking clashes between the two camps. Over two million Sudanese refugees and displaced persons have already fled to neighbouring countries and hundreds of thousands more will follow. The escalating violence will only make the already dire humanitarian crisis even worse.

The conflict in Sudan began on April 15 following an attack by a branch of the Sudanese Armed Forces, the Rapid Support Forces or RSF. I will give a brief overview. Their objective is to take control of the country, following a political disagreement between the government and the RSF commander.

This branch was created in 2013 by bringing together a number of militias to fight against rebel groups. A 2014 constitutional amendment gave the RSF the status of a regular force. Human Rights Watch was already targeting the RSF in 2014 and 2015 for its abuses against civilians, including murder and numerous acts of torture. RSF militia were particularly cruel to women and their families. They were often given orders to commit acts of unspeakable violence, as we often see in this type of situation.

Sudan is a country that has seen several conflicts, including two recent civil wars and an ongoing conflict in Darfur, which took place primarily between 2003 and 2020. The United Nations estimates that the conflict in Darfur has killed more than 300,000 people, and those massacres have been classified as genocide.

After Omar al-Bashir's regime was overthrown in 2019, General al-Burhan, the head of the armed forces who is currently facing off against General Hemedti, promised a democratic transition, but, of course, that never happened.

In December 2022, the two generals and 40 civilian groups signed an agreement detailing the democratic transition. However, disagreements persisted over this transition, and we know what happened next. On April 15, the RSF carried out a massive attack on strategic sites in order to take over Sudan's capital, sparking a humanitarian crisis and forcing thousands of civilians, including foreign nationals, to flee. For Khartoum residents, the lull observed in recent hours is not exactly a good sign.

According to several experts, both armies are reportedly taking advantage of the situation to move troops, stock up on weapons and reorganize in preparation to resume fighting after the announced truce. The fighting is likely to be much more deadly and difficult. Once again, civilians will be the first victims.

This is very bad news, and the death toll is already very high. According to a rough assessment, 420 people have been killed, including at least 273 civilians, and more than 3,700 people have been wounded in just a few days of fighting. Furthermore, it is believed that both armies are preparing for even bigger offensives.

Those who cannot escape now are trying to survive without water and electricity. They are facing food shortages as well as Internet and phone outages. These are men, women and children who have every reason to fear what lies ahead. Because of the fighting, many families are trapped with little or no access to the basic services that are essential to survival.

Humanitarian aid is essential, despite the obstacles that prevent NGOs from working safely on the ground. It must be said that Sudan already had one of the highest rates of child malnutrition in the world before the recent fighting broke out.

According to UNICEF, there are 600,000 children suffering from severe acute malnutrition. Even before the escalation of violence in Sudan, the humanitarian needs of children were very high. Three‑quarters of them were living and continue to live in extreme poverty. Seven million children do not go to school. That is almost equal to the population of Quebec.

I have no qualms about recognizing the good deeds of the other parties in the House of Commons. The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship announced yesterday that Sudanese nationals currently in Canada will be able to temporarily extend their stay here rather than returning home. It was the right thing to do, and it was done. Once these measures are in effect, Sudanese nationals will be able to apply for an extension of their status in Canada and switch permit streams free of charge. That is good news.

I am not shy about pointing out good deeds, but I am also not shy about asking questions. When will these measures come into force? It is not clear. We know what happens when we say it is time to act quickly. It took more than a year for Afghan nationals to get here. Why? It took more than a year to draft Bill C‑41, which is currently being studied at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We all agreed, and we are all aware of the requests the NGOs have been making for the past 18 months, but Canada still has not resolved the problem.

For those watching us, if any, I think it is important to reiterate what is set out in Bill C‑41. Bill C‑41 would amend the Criminal Code to create a regime for authorizing eligible persons to carry out, in a region that is controlled by a terrorist group, activities that otherwise would be prohibited under the Criminal Code. The bill assumes that the organizations have to seek authorization from Global Affairs Canada before conducting specific humanitarian activities or providing development aid in a region where that aid might directly or indirectly benefit terrorist groups in some way.

For example, right now, the Taliban, as the current de facto authority in Afghanistan, is likely to receive revenue from any payments such as taxes, import tariffs, airport fees and administrative fees. Such fees may be necessary to support international aid and conduct immigration and other activities. Any Canadian or person in Canada who makes or authorizes such payments may be contravening the Criminal Code. That means that, right now, it is impossible for Canadian NGOs to do their job and to help people the way they would like to. The crisis in Afghanistan has been going on since 2021, but we still have not figured this out. I get a bit scared sometimes when this government says that it is going to act quickly.

Just yesterday, the Minister of International Development tweeted, “Canada is ready to help the people of Sudan, and to provide aid to those in desperate need as conditions allow”.

Am I to understand that the reason it took the government more than 15 months to draft the 82 pages of Bill C‑41, which would allow NGOs to provide humanitarian aid in a crisis, is that conditions were not deemed favourable in Afghanistan? Conditions are not favourable in Sudan at this time. I will not delve any deeper into Bill C‑41 because I would have too much to say about it. Everyone knows me; I will come back to it at some point.

The government also announced that it would prioritize processing temporary and permanent residence applications from Sudan. This would also include visitor visa applications for eligible immediate family members of Canadian citizens and permanent residents. I will not lie: I am concerned about how long this will take. Again, the government needs to walk the talk.

Speaking of walking the talk, unsurprisingly, the federal government may not have chosen the best communication method for staying in touch with Canadians in Sudan. A Canadian woman in Sudan's capital said she received an email from the Canadian government at 2:45 a.m. local time on Monday night, telling her to reserve a seat on an evacuation flight scheduled for noon that day. The problem is that the country's Internet and phone services are largely down. She did not receive the email until the afternoon, so she could not get on that flight. These are the kind of situations that are happening. She said, and I quote, “We're already frustrated, we already don't know what's happening and what's going to happen. And the communication is basically poor”. This is someone who is trapped in Khartoum telling us this. Maybe we should listen to her. She is seriously affected, believe me.

Am I the only one who thinks that communication problems in federal departments have become the norm? I would have a lot to say about that as well.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, and I want to say it again, the primary victims right now are the civilians. As I stand here in the House, the people of Sudan are being held hostage. Men, women and children are without water, food and electricity. Time is running out. I hope that, for once, the federal government will act quickly, like a G7 country.

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.

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.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member across the way, having not had an opportunity to ask the Thursday question and not having been granted that opportunity, might be somewhat confused about the nature of the Thursday question or what it would be about, so of course we excuse him for that.

This afternoon, we are going to be concluding second reading debate of Bill C-26, concerning the critical cyber systems protection act. I would also like to thank all parties for their co-operation in helping to conclude that debate.

As all members are aware, and as I am sure you are aware of and quite excited for, Mr. Speaker, the House will be adjourned tomorrow for the address of the United States President, President Joe Biden.

On Monday, we will be dealing with the Senate amendments in relation to Bill C-11, the online streaming act.

Tuesday, we will continue the debate at second reading of Bill C-27, the digital charter implementation act, with the budget presentation taking place later that day, at 4 p.m.

Members will be pleased to know that days one and two of the budget debate, which I know members are anxiously awaiting, will be happening on Wednesday and Thursday, respectively.

On Friday, we will proceed to the second reading debate of Bill C-41, regarding humanitarian aid to vulnerable Afghans.

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

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

Foreign Affairs

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

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

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

Historic Places of Canada Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foreign Affairs

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, the relationship between Canada and Afghanistan is deep and abiding. That is why, after Kabul fell, we introduced a program that would resettle 40,000 refugees. That is a goal we are approximately 30,000 into, and we will continue to do that.

We cannot forget about the women, the girls and the religious minorities who have been systematically targeted by the Taliban. That is why, today, we introduced Bill C-41, which would reduce barriers and would allow us to deliver the humanitarian aid, the food, the shelter and the clothing they need. By doing so, by passing this law, and hopefully with the support of all opposition parties, we will be able to get that support to them as quickly as possible, while at the same time tackling and pushing back against the Taliban.