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.

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

Bill C-41—

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

I am deeply concerned about the humanitarian situations in Gaza and in Afghanistan, as I've said many times. Both of these territories are controlled by recognized terrorist organizations. Canadian organizations cannot operate in these places without authorization. That was the problem that Bill C-41 was supposed to solve. It was supposed to provide a framework whereby organizations could provide support in terrorist-controlled areas.

We heard last spring, when we studied this bill at the justice committee, about the great urgency of the matter to avoid another winter. That was in the case of Afghanistan. Minister, it's been a full year. No organization has been given authorization, because there's been no framework whatsoever for giving them authorization. In my view, given the urgency of this and that we were told a year ago what the urgency was, this is utterly disgraceful, and this affects many of the humanitarian contexts we're talking about. Is this an issue of government incompetence that we've delayed a year, or is it simply a matter of you or your officials not actually believing in the framework of the bill in the first place?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to follow up on one of the questions I asked that the officials answer with regard to Bill C-41, that clarification on the funds that have been sent to Afghanistan since Bill C-41 was enacted. Please clarify when you submit that back to the committee whether those organizations are Canadian or whether those organizations are multilateral organizations. Thank you.

Then, I would also go back to the minister.

I know I threw a lot at you, Minister, right before I ran out of time, but I would like to ask the question again. Can you please state that a Liberal government would not accept any solution to rebuilding Gaza that denies the right of Gazans to return to their land?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

To be perfectly honest, just to interrupt before I get the answer to the first question, there was supposed to be a review after one year. That's in the legislation. That's impossible to do, because you haven't given organizations any of the framework on how to apply for these authorizations. You're in contradiction of the legislation that is supposed to be doing the review.

I will go to your colleagues on the amount that has flowed to Afghanistan since Bill C-41 passed.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

We're talking about small and medium organizations here, Minister, and a concern that I have and I've expressed to you many times is around Bill C-41.

A year ago your government pushed through Bill C-41. It significantly changed the way Canadians can do international development work. We were happy that the NDP was successful in amending the legislation to ensure that humanitarian work was exempted from the new authorization regime, but development work, the work you're responsible for, is still within that Bill C-41.

We're over a year in. There is no guidance for Canadian organizations on how to navigate this regime and apply for authorizations from the government. We know there are situations in Sudan, the DRC and elsewhere around the world where this is going to have impacts, so I have two questions for you.

How much development funding for Afghanistan—not humanitarian funding but development funding—has reached Afghanistan since Bill C-41 passed? When will Canadian organizations see the guidance from your government that can help them navigate what is a completely inappropriate, draconian authorization regime?

[Susan Steffen]

Bill C-41 is an important bill for looking at ensuring that humanitarian assistance can get to populations that need it, even if they're in places where terrorist activities do happen.

That's the extent to which I wish to pronounce on it here because we're not responsible for that piece of—

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'm sorry. I'm going to have to interrupt. You'll understand, as I have such a small amount of time.

I want to bring something up. We look at conflicts around the continent and see that there are a number of places where there's a potential for terrorist organizations, or organizations identified as “terrorist entities”, to be in charge or to have some role to play within certain regions of the continent.

BillC-41 was the bill that came forward intended to be used with regard to Afghanistan, in order to make sure we could get aid into Afghanistan. We still have not had any documentation or guidance provided for Bill C-41.

I'd like to hear what impact the bill could have on organizations working in Africa.

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 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.

[Michael Messenger]

With respect to Afghanistan, the efforts on Bill C-41, particularly the humanitarian exemption, have certainly opened up the opportunity for us to continue to do the work there. There are still some matters that are being worked out in terms of the details of that, but our commitment is to release funding to ensure that it is reaching the most vulnerable in that context. That includes some of our education programs as well.

We're committed to that. That effort has certainly helped. There still remain some barriers as we work out some of the details, particularly on the development side as opposed to just the humanitarian response, where it's not entirely clear. We're committed and we're positive about the ability to reach those in need.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for being with us today, both in person and online.

Two things in particular stood out from their respective presentations. The first is access to vulnerable populations, that is, children with disabilities, in this instance, today. The second is funding.

My first question concerns access to vulnerable populations.

Second, we have worked on Bill C‑41. It was designed in part to ensure that people are able to work with vulnerable populations in countries like Afghanistan. I wonder if the fact that a country is controlled by a terrorist entity, as is the case in Afghanistan, is still a problem for your organizations.

Do you still have trouble accessing vulnerable populations of children with disabilities despite the passage of Bill C‑41?

That's an open question. I know that World Vision Canada took part in the discussions, as did CARE Canada, I believe.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The amendment we're proposing deals with the issue of export permits. It amends the Export and Import Permits Act.

It says:

Despite subsection (2), any type of munition that is intended for export to the United States and that is excluded from the Export Control List shall not be included on the Export Control List if it is intended for export to Ukraine.

It also says:

For as long as any permit issued under subsection (1.1) to export any type of munition to the United States is in force, the export of the same type of munition to Ukraine is also permitted, subject to the terms and conditions described in that permit.

Essentially, this amendment would streamline the rules around export permits for weapons and ammunitions intended for Ukraine by applying the same standard of review that is applied in the case of the United States. There are various provisions that regulate export permits for munitions and there are some variations in the standard of review that's involved, depending on the country in question.

Ukraine is an important ally. We want to see weapons delivered as quickly as possible, and that is why we think applying the review standard for Ukraine that is associated with most other NATO partners is sensible and reasonable. The review standard that is applied to our other partners could be applied to Ukraine, and this would have the effect of significantly streamlining that review process, allowing weapons and munitions in general to be delivered to Ukraine more quickly.

Again, this amendment would have concrete effect for the brave women and men on the front lines fighting the illegal, genocidal invasion by Russia. I hope that members will be supportive of this amendment proceeding through the process.

If I can, in the context of speaking to this amendment, I would remind members of the processes around amendments. If the committee chooses to adopt this amendment, we can also seek the concurrence of the House to accept it even if it goes beyond the formal parameters of scope. I've been involved in legislative reviews in the past where committees have decided that expansions of scope are necessary and important and have sent requests to the House to expand the scope. Motions have been adopted in the House or there's simply been unanimous consent at report stage.

I recall the work that was done in Bill C-41, for example. We agreed on certain amendments that did, formally speaking, go beyond the scope of the bill at second reading, and therefore there was unanimous consent at report stage to allow those amendments to go through.

We have all the tools available to us to adopt these amendments. There is no fundamental impediment to us adopting this, or any other amendment that we wish to adopt, provided there is a will to do so. Sadly, what we've seen so far is that there hasn't been a will to adopt these important amendments that support weapons exports. We had motions last week from Conservative members that would have allowed these amendments to be deemed necessarily in scope. We tried to put those motions forward to make the process easier. Liberals and New Democrats opposed those motions.

Today, again, we're seeing opposition to our efforts to adopt these important amendments, but it is important to underline and get on the record that if the committee wanted to move forward with these amendments, we could. The only reason we're not moving forward with them, in most cases it seems, is that Liberals and New Democrats are voting against our efforts to move those forward.

I hope that on this amendment, a common-sense amendment to get munitions to our allies in Ukraine more quickly, we'll see more support from colleagues around the table.

Thank you.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I want to dive a bit more into this humanitarian carve-out piece. I recognize the need for standardized humanitarian carve-outs, which we just heard about. Obviously, that's not the case in Canada right now, with Bill C-41.

To my understanding, no money has actually gone to Afghanistan to date, even though that carve-out has already been put into place, because it is so onerous and difficult to navigate.

I'd like to know what the Red Cross's experience has been with the process so far and what Canada should have done differently. Knowing that there is a one-year review that was put into that legislation, what are the lessons that the government needs to learn to fix this legislation going forward?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

Ms. Gribbin, when you respond, could you also talk a bit about Bill C-41? You know the challenges that the New Democratic Party had with Bill C-41. It's a bad law, from my perspective. We got that humanitarian carve-out included, but it is still incredibly onerous.

Could you talk about your experience with that as you answer?

[The Speaker, Liberal, 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?

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.

Criminal Code

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

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

The House resumed from June 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-41, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

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

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

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They said that the Criminal Code might need to be amended so that NGOs on the ground could operate in Afghanistan without fear of being accused of funding terrorism. In my opinion, this is a very important subject that we need to address. What are your thoughts on this...?

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

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

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

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

The bill is now in the Senate for a pre-study before it reaches report stage. As it is currently written, the Criminal Code does not include any exemptions to facilitate the delivery of essential activities in areas affected by terrorism. The government of Canada tabled Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts, on March 9. As I mentioned earlier, this bill amends one of the Criminal Code's anti-terrorist financing offences to facilitate the delivery of much-needed international assistance, immigration activities, and other assistance in geographic areas controlled by terrorist groups.

In other words, the proposed amendments would create a new authorization scheme that would allow those that provide humanitarian aid to apply for an authorization that would shield them from the risk of criminal liability if the terms and conditions of the authorization are respected. We have to understand that the Taliban, as the current de facto authority in Afghanistan, is likely to receive revenue from any payments needed to support humanitarian aid. For example, sometimes the Taliban may collect taxes at roadside checkpoints they have set up and people have to pay to be able to pass through. Under the Criminal Code, any Canadian or person in Canada making or authorizing such payments would risk contravening a provision of the Criminal Code.

Despite the uncertainty, most organizations have continued to respond to crises around the world, but problems have grown exponentially since the Taliban, a listed terrorist entity, took control of Afghanistan in August 2021. In that regard, the scale of the humanitarian and economic crisis that the Afghan people are now facing cannot be overstated.

On paper, Bill C-41 rectifies this inability to make exceptions for organizations that are trying to deliver humanitarian aid on the ground.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-41, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The situation in Afghanistan is haunting. The Afghan people have persisted through four decades of war, and since the forceful capture of the country by the Taliban, the world has witnessed the erosion of fundamental rights and the steady deterioration of social and economic systems. This has created the largest humanitarian crisis in the world.

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

The World Bank had assessed that Afghanistan’s economy was “shaped by fragility and aid dependence.” Grants were financing some 75% of total public expenditure and were responsible for around 45% of Afghanistan’s gross domestic product in 2020. With the abrupt [and violent] return to power of the Taliban, Afghanistan—whose currency reserves held abroad were frozen—experienced a significant fiscal contraction at the same time as it essentially became cut-off from the international banking and payments systems. That occurred because the Taliban have long been [rightly] subject to sanctions in relation to terrorism.

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

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

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

To encapsulate the enormity of this situation, John Aylieff, regional director for Asia and the Pacific in the World Food Programme, told the special committee, “Today, millions of people in Afghanistan—young children, families and communities—stand at the precipice of inhumane hunger and destitution.”

Of the 23 million people who require food assistance, nearly nine million were one step away from famine, while some one million children were at risk of perishing this year from acute malnutrition. The population of Afghanistan is 40 million, and 23 million require food assistance. Canadian aid agencies are ready and willing to help.

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

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

Bill C-41 should provide registered Canadian organizations the clarity and assurances needed to deliver humanitarian assistance and meet the basic needs of the people of Afghanistan, without fear of prosecution for violating Canada's anti-terrorism laws. Canada has a long and rich history of fighting for human rights and delivering life-saving assistance abroad.

Over the last 20 years, many Afghans experienced improved access to health services and education and were able to participate in efforts to build their democracy. This occurred, in no small part, thanks to the efforts of Canadian organizations providing aid and support of a generation of leaders, many of whom were women, who were building a better country for Afghans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Bill, as amended, concurred in)

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

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

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

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

I move:

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

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

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

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

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

be deemed within the principle of the bill; and

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

Two, what risks might there be?

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

Thank you very much to the witnesses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice and Human Rights

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

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

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

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Chair.

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

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

Thanks.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

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

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Next is NDP-6.

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I call this meeting to order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(On clause 1)

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

Ms. Damoff.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

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

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

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

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

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

I have two questions.

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

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

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

Would you answer those questions?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to follow up with the officials on Bill C-41. I know it's a Public Safety or Justice lead, and not you guys directly, but I'm hoping you're part of the process. Obviously, you deal with international development organizations and you'll be providing advice on the implementation of aspects of this. It's working its way to the justice committee. There are a lot of concerns about how it works.

I wonder whether you could tell us in which parts of the world, right now, development organizations need to make applications, other than Afghanistan? There has been a lot of discussion about Afghanistan, but the bill would apply in other places. Where would you advise international development organizations they need to make an application, other than Afghanistan?

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

Thank you, Chair.

Maybe the Africa strategy was in an email somewhere.

Minister, I think we're having some challenges around seeing results, to be blunt about it. The Auditor General says you're not measuring results when it comes to improving the lives of women and girls. Bill C-41 is deeply flawed. The budget reverses various aid commitments. We have the whole issue of emails being checked during a crisis. That's beyond many of the other issues we've had at the Department of Defence.

I think the challenge from this committee to you is that we want to see results. We want to see outcomes. We don't just want to see good intentions. We want to see positive results.

I want to zero in first on a follow-up to my colleague's questions on the Auditor General. It's not clear to me if you fully accept and agree with the conclusions of the Auditor General in what was a very damning report. I want to hear from you, the minister: Do you accept and fully agree with the conclusions of the Auditor General?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

For Bill C-41, this is something we knew we needed to change. The legislation previously in place did make that a challenge. We had to work with our colleagues to make sure we had the right balance. I actually commend the committee for its work on this. That's what committee work is for, to make the legislation better. I look forward to the results on that.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Let's move to Bill C-41 now.

I'm going to run out of time. I'm sorry, sir.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Okay, but you asked multiple questions before, and I was trying to answer those. I can move to Bill C-41 if you like.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

But I was asking about the total amount and that percentage of ODA. Of course, we know that has been reduced by 15%.

The question I would like you to answer right now, if you don't mind, is on Bill C-41.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

No, your baseline budget has to incorporate all of the things that happen in the world. That's what international development is. This is an example of how you're not meeting the needs of the sector. You're not meeting the needs of people around the world.

Bill C-41 is another perfect example, Minister. You were responsible for making sure that Public Safety and Justice understood how humanitarian action actually occurs. In fact, what happened with Bill C-41 is that we weaponized, we criminalized, international development and humanitarian aid.

Everyone in the sector asked for a humanitarian carve-out. They didn't get that. When I listened to the experts from Public Safety and from Finance, it was almost as though they had never even heard about what humanitarian aid was. This was deeply flawed legislation.

What are you going to do to fix that?

[Stephen Salewicz]

Canadian NGOs are challenged because of Bill C-41 right now. They're challenged because of the counterterrorism law, which we've discussed already.

Maybe my colleague would like to go down that road.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I've been working on this for a year and a half, and I want to clarify something: Bill C‑41 does not provide an exemption, currently. NGOs have to apply, and the burden of proof is on them to convince the government that they are not funding terrorism. That has to be very clear.

[Stephen Salewicz]

Just to be clear, there's interference at the local level. Aid is coming in. Indeed, last year, with Canada's assistance, the broader donor community provided food aid to 26 million people. Food aid is coming in. Broader assistance is happening.

There is a challenging operating context at the local level, and our partners deal with that on a regular basis, but they are successful in responding. Where Bill C-41—

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I find your response very interesting. It seems like right now, no help is coming into the country.

Can you give us an idea of how Bill C‑41, by granting an exemption, is going to improve the situation you just described, where the Taliban are blocking humanitarian aid? It's not because we're not trying to send it, it's because it is being blocked, or we've stopped sending it so it doesn't fall into the wrong hands.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Good evening.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I should point out at the outset that I am not a permanent member of the committee. I apologize if I am asking questions that have already been asked.

I would like to talk a little bit about Bill C‑41 and the solution it seeks to provide to a very difficult situation. Like other members of Parliament, I have received a great deal of correspondence over the past year or more from people who are concerned about the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. Many people have written to me asking that an exemption be created to allow aid to get to those in need in Afghanistan.

To begin, can you give us an example or an overview of the challenges there currently are on the ground with respect to the delivery of humanitarian aid in Afghanistan? Could you give us a picture of the situation and the challenges that are being faced in helping people in need in Afghanistan?

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

Your department is still responsible for providing emergency humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan. Currently, it has to do so through international organizations, as it is still difficult for Canadian NGOs, as Bill C‑41 has still not passed.

So you have goals. That's what you just told us.

Do you have a mechanism to evaluate whether you are meeting those goals? How do you know whether or not those goals are being met?

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Minister, I've heard that some UN organizations are considering making the continuation of their operations in Afghanistan conditional upon permitting women to be employed by them. As Bill C-41 allows the safety minister to impose conditions on the authorization to provide humanitarian assistance, is Canada considering making women staffing a condition of Canadian assistance? What are the pros and cons of requiring such a condition?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Simply for your information, Minister, I just came from the Standing Committee on Justice, which is studying Bill C‑41. It took you 15 months to draft an 82‑page bill, when everyone already agreed on the problem from the start. Now we hear that the Liberals might filibuster. When we say we need to move quickly, there may be a problem on your side of the House, but we'll get to that.

Your mission to Qatar disturbs me, Minister.

With respect to Canada's arms sale to Qatar, is it because you don't agree with that sale that you didn't put out that key message, which was in your briefing notes?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Again, I want to take the opportunity to thank all of you for your work on this.

This legislation, Bill C-41, is very important. What it will allow is for agencies that want to work in Afghanistan to get through the approval process so they can conduct their work. It will allow us to reach more people.

Even with the challenges, we are focused on trying to deliver support as much as we can. We wanted to be able to not just focus on humanitarian work but also focus on education. That is still open, but at least with the legislative changes that we will eventually get done, we will have a greater capacity to do more.

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

I thank you very much for that. I will echo that when I go home. I sometimes talk to our Legion and some of our veterans.

I'm very proud of a number, Minister—30,000. There are a little over 30,000 Afghans who can now call Canada home. That's a reflection of the work done by our government, by people from everywhere, to bring these people here. I actually had the great pleasure of welcoming some of the Afghan newcomers here.

There's a particular thought...and I think I was part of it, which is Bill C-41. I would certainly like you to share a bit with our committee what this new bill being introduced means for you in your current role. How quickly should we pass it?

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

All right, thank you.

We agree that getting humanitarian aid into Afghanistan is critical. I've just come from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which is working on Bill C‑41, that we've talked about several times, Minister, and which your government has been far too slow to introduce.

Today, the daily La Presse tells us that Prime Minister Trudeau is going to the Global Citizen NOW summit in New York, which some NGOs are complaining about, given that Canada's humanitarian aid budget was recently cut by 15%. Yet we send a Prime Minister to strut his stuff at this summit in New York alongside some influencers, comedians and musicians.

Don't you find it contradictory that we are sending the Prime Minister to strut his stuff at this summit while we are cutting the international aid budget?

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 61 of the House Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order of reference of March 27, 2023, the committee is meeting to continue its study of Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House Order of June 23, 2022.

Yes, Mr. Genuis.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I'd like to begin my remarks by restating the Government of Canada's commitment to the Afghan people as they face a dire humanitarian crisis with the reversal of many of the gains made over the last 20 years. Canada has supported and will continue to support the most vulnerable Afghans, particularly the many women and girls who have experienced the removal of their most basic rights and freedoms.

Our government is grateful for the work of the Special Committee on Afghanistan and its report and recommendations to provide further support to the Afghan people. We are taking a whole-of-government approach in responding to the committee's report. This has required and will continue to require a coordinated effort across several departments.

Since the Taliban took over as the de facto authority in Afghanistan, Canada has faced significant challenges in providing consular support to assist vulnerable Afghans who want to come to Canada, and in delivering much-needed international assistance. We are witnessing the rapid deterioration of human rights and freedoms in Afghanistan as a result of the Taliban's highly repressive and indefensible policies towards women and girls.

I'm here today to speak to the progress made on the recommendations from the Special Committee on Afghanistan in its final report. I want to highlight areas where Canada has focused its efforts since the tabling of the government response.

Humanitarian conditions in Afghanistan have significantly deteriorated since the Taliban's takeover in August 2021. We are now seeing over 28 million people—nearly two-thirds of the population—in need of urgent assistance. This is up from 18.4 million at the start of 2021. Afghans are suffering one of the world's worst humanitarian crises, with needs emerging across all sectors, resulting in nearly half the population experiencing acute food insecurity.

Canada has been steadfast in its continued support of the humanitarian needs of the most vulnerable Afghans, including women and girls. We have found ways to deliver assistance in this difficult environment through experienced international humanitarian organizations and ensuring that it reaches those in need.

In 2022, Canada provided over $143 million to support efforts in delivering much-needed emergency food and nutrition assistance, health services, emergency shelter, and protection services in Afghanistan and in neighbouring countries. As a nation, we continue to offer our support in 2023.

I just want to state that the Taliban's status as a terrorist group has imposed constraints on Canada's charities, non-governmental organizations and government officials wishing to deliver aid in Afghanistan, as any taxes, tariffs or fees paid to the Taliban risk contravening the Criminal Code's counterterrorism financing provisions.

In March, my colleague, Minister Mendicino, tabled Bill C-41, an amendment to the Criminal Code that would facilitate our humanitarian, human rights and safe-passage work in Afghanistan by providing an authorization regime that could shelter Canadian organizations providing needed activities from the risk of criminal liability. With this amendment, we aim to provide more flexibility to our partners to deliver on our humanitarian responsibilities while ensuring that Canada's counterterrorism measures remain strong and effective.

Increasingly, the Taliban is restricting the rights and freedoms of Afghan women and girls, including their freedom of movement and dress, as well as their ability to work in the profession of their choice or to receive an education. We are alarmed by the Taliban's decree of December 2022—which banned female NGO workers from providing assistance and in April was subsequently extended to women working for United Nations agencies—particularly in light of the humanitarian crisis, as well as by the outrageous ban on women attending university. The Government of Canada has repeatedly, at the highest level, strongly condemned the Taliban's attempt to erase girls and women from public life in Afghanistan.

As these restrictions increase, Canada's support for Afghan women and girls has not wavered. Canada continues to advocate strongly for the full realization of Afghan women's and girls' rights at every opportunity, including through outreach by our special representative for Afghanistan and our permanent missions at the United Nations in New York and in Geneva, as well as through our civil society partners and on social media.

Additionally, Canadian officials consult regularly with a broad range of Afghan women leaders and human rights defenders in order to better understand their needs and how we can best support them. The international community, including Canada, is working together in a strong, coordinated effort to fiercely advocate for the rights of Afghan women and girls, and to call on the Taliban to reverse the bans and protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of the Afghan people.

In conclusion, the Government of Canada is committed to doing all it can to address the recommendations made in the special committee's report. We remain committed to the people of Afghanistan and to calling out the Taliban for its unacceptable repression of the rights of women and girls.

Thank you for your time. I'm looking forward to the questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

There is a ruling. Bill C-41 amends the Criminal Code 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.

The prohibited activities within the scope of the bill are set out in existing paragraph 83.03(b), which becomes new subsection 83.03(2), of the code and specifically concern the collection or provision of property or services for use by a terrorist group.

The amendment proposes to allow the minister to authorize an eligible person to carry out activities that would otherwise be prohibited under the other provisions of part II.1 of the Criminal Code in a geographic area that is controlled by a terrorist group.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 70, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” In the opinion of the chair, allowing exceptions to prohibited activities under the whole of part II.1 of the Criminal Code is beyond the scope of the bill; therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

[Robert Brookfield]

The obligations, as in the existing law as we formulated in BillC-41, are in proposed subsections 83.03(1) and 83.03(2), for knowingly supporting terrorist purposes and knowingly supporting terrorist organizations. Proposed subsection 83.032(1) is the power given to the Minister of Public Safety to issue an authorization.

This amendment limits the power to issue that authorization. The existing law would remain and a potential liability, but the ability to apply under a situation that does not meet the requirement of substantial control would be removed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Mr. Genuis, I actually have to make a ruling first. I thought you were making comments.

The ruling is that Bill C-41 amends the Criminal Code 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, certain activities that would otherwise be prohibited. The amendment proposes to allow a person to carry out such activities in a geographic area that is controlled by a terrorist group without authorization from the minister.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment proposes an exception to both proposed subsections 83.03(1) and 83.03(2) that would not require the minister’s authorization, which is contrary to the principle of the bill. Therefore, the amendment is inadmissible.

It's a non-debatable issue, unless you want to challenge the chair.

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Yes. I believe they've all been moved.

Mr. Chair, NDP-3 is something that we have all heard from the testimony as being very needed to make this bill useful. This is the humanitarian carve-out that we had hoped the entire bill would be. I think all of the opposition parties have been asking for a very long time—for over 18 months now—to have this legislation in place. When the legislation was tabled and Bill C-41 was brought forward, that carve-out was not in this legislation.

This is an attempt. I think we've heard enough testimony from enough different groups that I have.... All parties want to find a solution to ensure that there is a humanitarian carve-out for organizations. We would be asking the committee to consider adding 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 humanitarian law.”

It would also delete lines 15 to 19 on page 2.

[Robert Brookfield]

To clarify, the first part of the amendment doesn't just amend the ability to issue authorization. It also amends the crime itself. The crime itself would essentially be more limited, such that, whether in Canada or abroad, an individual who gives money to an organization that carries out terrorist activities would not be prohibited, as long as it's only giving it to the organization and not knowingly for a terrorist purpose. That's in proposed subsection 83.03(1) as the present Bill C‑41 will provide, and that stays in.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Shall amendment NDP-1 carry?

(Amendment agreed to)

For NDP-2, I believe a new version was circulated earlier today with the reference number 12356266, which is the version the committee will now consider.

If NDP-2 is adopted, several instances of the words “terrorist group” in the bill would be changed to “listed entity”. Members may want to remember this when considering subsequent amendments that use either term to ensure consistency throughout Bill C-41.

Go ahead, Ms. Damoff.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 60 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order of reference of March 27, 2023, the committee is meeting to begin its study of Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and the members. I don't think there is anyone on Zoom. No, so we'll skip that. I think all of you are familiar with microphone issues and how to get your translation services.

On our agenda today, we'll be proceeding to the clause-by-clause study of Bill C-41. If time permits, we'll try to begin our study in camera of the draft report on extradition. If it isn't possible, we will continue doing that on Wednesday.

Before I begin the business of today, I want to wish Ms. Dhillon a happy birthday. It's her birthday today, so happy birthday, Ms. Dhillon.

[Martin Fischer]

If I can just.... I'm obviously not speaking on behalf of the Canadian Red Cross, but I think the conversation has evolved over the last few days to say that just Bill C-41 is insufficient. In my interpretation of the position from ICRC, if there were not room for an additional humanitarian carve-out and if Bill C-41 passes unamended, then that's not ideal. I think that's where consensus has emerged from all witnesses. I think that's fair.

[Martin Fischer]

I'll speak on World Vision's behalf.

The other consideration is that at least the three organizations that are sitting here, as well as many of the other organizations, operate in these large international federations or partnerships in which we have very strict guidelines around risk tolerance and around what Usama was talking about. Ultimately, yes, World Vision Canada makes a decision on whether or not the risk is acceptable to us, but there's also an international component in there that provides additional safeguards, and our partnership provides guidance as to whether a context is too tricky, too risky, for us to operate within it.

Again, different organizations will come to that conclusion at different levels, and there is no right threshold, whether it's 3%, 5%, 7% or 14%, at which you hit that determination.

I have two concluding remarks. First, we're driven by the humanitarian imperative, and the humanitarian imperative obliges us to take risks in order to deliver humanitarian assistance, but when we perceive that those risks affect our ability to provide assistance because of the legal parameters that we operate in within Canada, then we will have that kind of consideration.

The second piece—and we've said this at various stages—is that it's not just Bill C-41 that provides the regulatory framework for charities and humanitarian organizations in Canada to operate in those kinds of contexts. At the very top we have donor promise, as Usama said. We have to provide Canadians certainty that what they are giving us the funds for is actually what the funds are being used for, and then be very clear right down to reporting with the CRA and elsewhere, so it's not just Bill C-41. You have to place that into a larger context.

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

Has the Minister of Public Safety contacted you directly to consult on Bill C‑41?

[Martin Fischer]

If I can just throw some of that question back to the government, because it's ultimately.... The bill we have before us is the bill that we have before us for reasons that we heard on Monday, from both Minister Mendicino and the officials. If there's a legal as well as a political way to insert that exemption, by all means, do so. I don't think anybody at this table is going to say, “Don't do that.”

What we're saying, though, is that it shouldn't be the litmus test of whether this particular.... A fine-tuned version of Bill C-41 should proceed. Just to reiterate, we also have the position that the two aren't mutually exclusive. You can do them in a sequenced kind of way.

Really, Ms. Damoff—we know each other well—it's a matter of what the government intends to do. I think we would strongly support what MSF and others said during the first session, which is that, yes, if there's a way to do this, if it's ruled within scope during the amendment process, then by all means, please do it, but we would also urge—to turn to opposition—that it is not the litmus test of the bill. There are other ways to improve the bill as it stands that make it fit for purpose.

As Amy said, if that is done, we should still proceed while seeking the long-term commitment and working towards an improved framework that includes an exemption. I hope that's clear.

[Amy Avis, Chief of Emergency Management and General Counsel, Canadian Red Cross]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this evening.

A core belief of the Canadian Red Cross as well as of our sector partners is that no one should be blocked from receiving humanitarian assistance on the basis of location. We believe that Bill C-41 is a critical step forward in a longer-term journey to protect the provision of neutral and impartial humanitarian assistance. If implemented, put simply, it will enable Canadian aid organizations to resume operations in Afghanistan and conduct its operations in complex contexts across the globe.

I would like to focus on four recommendations today. The first is expediency. The second is alignment of the amendments to the purpose of the bill. The third is ensuring that the authorization regime is fit for purpose, and the fourth is the commitment to the longer-term journey that my colleague referred to.

In terms of expediency and implementation, all of us are aware of the staggering need for humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan. No one would like to see a second anniversary come to pass while Canadian aid organizations desperately want to deploy their resources, Canadian expertise and support to those who desperately need it. These programs are vital for improving access to health care and other life-saving assistance, in particular for women and girls.

My second submission is with regard to alignment of the amendments to the bill. We heard many discussions earlier this evening in terms of recommendations, and we agree with a lot of them that have been discussed.

What we would say is that the bill is intended to address an exceptional set of circumstances and rare contexts in which interaction with a terrorist entity is wholly unavoidable. It isn't about just the context of Afghanistan; it is around narrow, exceptional circumstances globally. To better support this intent, one of our strongest recommendations is to use the language of “substantial” control rather than “sufficient” control.

Finally, although there's a need for further clarity in the language of the bill, any revision must guard against the unintended consequence of increasing the breadth of application of the authorization regime.

This brings me to my third point: ensuring that the authorization regime itself is fit for purpose.

The coalition has chosen to focus on the implementation of the authorization regime because we feel as though this is where the rubber is truly going to hit the road. Beyond amendments to the bill itself, this is something that we can't lose sight of. We believe it has to be clear, fair, consistent, practical, expedient, reasonable and resourced. It also has to keep pace with operational realities.

The last is the most important, and I see my time is up, so I will be brief. It's the commitment to the longer-term journey. This is the step, the building block. It isn't everything. As long as we're committed to the longer-term journey that needs to be taken forward to systematize the provision of neutral and impartial humanitarian assistance, we strongly support the recommendations of this bill.

[Martin Fischer, Head of Policy, World Vision Canada]

Thank you, Chair.

Honourable members, thank you for inviting us to appear today on your deliberations on Bill C-41.

My name is Martin Fischer. I'm the head of policy for World Vision Canada, and I'm joined by my colleague, Amy Avis, who's the chief of emergency management at the Canadian Red Cross and also a much more qualified lawyer than I will ever try to be.

We're joining you from Ottawa, which is on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Our organizations are both members, as Usama has mentioned, of the #AidForAfghanistan coalition, a diverse group of Canadian humanitarian aid, human rights and women's rights organizations that have operated in Afghanistan for decades. Today we're speaking to a submission that was jointly prepared by eight organizations.

I want to emphasize that over the past months, and in fact longer than a year, we've closely engaged with parliamentarians from all parties and many of you around a table, as well as officials and ministerial staff from many departments, and that dialogue has been exceedingly constructive throughout. Thank you for that.

Before Amy details some of the legal considerations of our submission, I want to stress three points regarding Bill C-41.

First, as you progress through these deliberations, you'll hear, as you have, a spectrum of views on Bill C-41. We believe that with some fine tuning, it is a critical step forward in a longer-term journey to ensure that Canadian humanitarian organizations as well as those delivering other services in these difficult contexts can operate in a neutral, impartial and independent manner in the most difficult and exceptional circumstances.

Second, Bill C-41 applies to a very narrow, exceptional set of contexts in which interaction with the terrorist group's exercise of control over territory is wholly unavoidable.

Third, while Bill C-41 is not specific to just Afghanistan, it can enable us to resume work in that particularly challenging context, hopefully in the very short term. We cannot lose sight of the severity of the humanitarian crisis there and the obligations that Canada and Canadians have to help.

I'd like to turn it over to Amy now. She will outline some of our legal perspectives and recommendations contained in this submission.

[Usama Khan, Chief Executive Officer, Islamic Relief Canada]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Usama Khan. I'm the chief executive officer at Islamic Relief Canada, which is a member of the Humanitarian Coalition.

Since 1999, Islamic Relief globally has been operational in Afghanistan, and throughout the current last two years as well. Recently, the UNDP selected Islamic Relief as an implementing partner for a $22-million project, recognizing that it can deliver in Afghanistan in an effective, transparent and accountable way.

I want to start off by acknowledging how proud I am of the Aid for Afghanistan coalition, which includes the Red Cross, World Vision and many other agencies that come together and encourage legislative change on this important area. I also must acknowledge that I think we're here speaking about this today because of public mobilization and the tens of thousands of people across the country who are interested in Canada's position on this. For me, that is the true power of democracy.

With the current language in Bill C-41, we feel there are some unintended consequences that may actually move us backward instead of forward. Continuing on the discussion from the last session, I want to add a few perspectives from our experience in working in Afghanistan.

On the question of how much aid or how many taxes go to countries, I know a figure of 70% was raised as a hypothetical scenario in the question-and-answer period. Maybe I can give some tangible examples from this crisis.

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

That is just to give an example that agencies like Islamic Relief have very robust anti-diversion policies and anti-bribery policies, and to give them the space to make those operational decisions on the ground that will be reasonable and accountable....

First, I think that placing the additional administrative burden on charities as part of the authorization regime would be onerous. The onus should be on the government to decide which organizations are listed, and not on the charities to do that themselves.

Second, I want to spend a few moments on the process of the authorization regime, particularly around the risks of terrorism financing. In terms of the securitization of humanitarian aid, Canada's updated inherent risk assessment for money laundering and terrorism financing was released a few weeks ago. It mentions that “the government must be vigilant to avoid systemic and unconscious bias influencing how it is applied.”

There's some language in the bill with respect to what we heard about the vague word “links”, which I think now or in the future could be used as a political tool and could be used to have a chilling effect on the humanitarian sector. I think it's important that we look at the oversight, transparency and accountability measures that would be in place as part of the authorization regime in approving these things.

In conclusion, this is an important step and this discussion is an important step, but we want to make sure that the unintended consequences don't outweigh the benefit that we're trying to achieve.

Thank you so much.

[Shabnam Salehi, As an Individual]

Dear Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I am honoured to have the opportunity to express my opinion regarding Bill C-41.

I am Shabnam Salehi. I was the women's rights commissioner at the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, and besides that, I was a lecturer at Kabul University. Now I am a visiting lecturer at the University of Ottawa.

In my opinion, the bill will grant the Canadian government the necessary permission to effectively address the ongoing crisis in Afghanistan.

As you all are aware, Afghanistan is facing a humanitarian crisis that is affecting millions of people. According to OCHA, 28.3 million people have been found to have severe food insecurity, and nearly 19.9 million people suffer from acute hunger. According to the UNDP, as of mid-2022, almost 97% of Afghans were living below the World Bank's $1.90-per-day international poverty threshold.

Additionally, poverty in Afghanistan is likely to become even worse. Before August 2021, Afghanistan's economy was 75% dependent on foreign aid. According to the World Bank, a rapid reduction in international grant support, loss of access to offshore assets and disruption in financial linkages are expected to lead to a major contraction of the economy, increasing poverty and macroeconomic instability.

The de facto authority has been continuing to engage in discriminatory actions against women, exemplified by the Taliban's unjustified ban on girls' education. This ban is a result of the Taliban's extremist ideology, which promotes gender apartheid and seeks to exclude women from social life. The Taliban gradually enforced the bans through a series of decrees, starting with prohibiting male teachers from educating girls, followed by the implementation of gender-segregated classes and, ultimately, the closure of secondary education for girls. Additionally, the Taliban limited women's ability to choose certain academic fields and eventually prohibited female university students from pursuing higher education. This further exacerbated the issue, as women were prohibited from working, including in UN agencies. As of the beginning of this week, the Taliban has extended this crackdown on women's education by closing primary schools in four provinces of Afghanistan.

Canada faces a crucial decision: whether to permit the oppressive regime in Afghanistan to continue its discriminatory practices or to take affirmative action to counter its suppression, specifically by empowering the people of Afghanistan, especially women. If Canada opts for the latter, I think the proposed bill allows a blueprint for implementing, executing and assisting the response under the current regime. I believe this bill will present a viable path forward by providing a plan to support the Afghan people, particularly women.

My request to the committee is to ensure that the bill prioritizes the empowerment of women, social mobilization and civil movements as a means of confronting the discriminatory policies imposed by the regime. To achieve this, I propose that the bill strongly emphasize the distribution of aid towards women's empowerment, the protection and promotion of human rights, and widespread social mobilization.

To achieve this mission, I believe that subsequent legislation, policies and programmatic interventions would align Canadian diplomatic and humanitarian assistance with that of other allies to accelerate pressure on the regime to change its discriminatory policies. This will provide Canada with the opportunity to actively engage in the process of empowering and supporting the people of Afghanistan towards a positive change that aligns with Canada's core interests and international commitments.

By working in co-operation with other allies, Canada can pool resources and efforts towards a shared goal of creating a more just and equitable society in Afghanistan. This will also provide an opportunity for Canada to showcase its leadership in promoting human rights and gender equality globally.

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I call the meeting back to order.

We are back to continue our study on Bill C-41.

We now have Shabnam Salehi, as an individual. We have Usama Khan, chief executive officer of Islamic Relief Canada. Welcome.

From World Vision Canada, we have Martin Fischer, head of policy. We also have Amy Avis, chief of emergency management and general counsel. I think they will be sharing their time.

We don't have anybody online. It is all in person.

We'll begin with Shabnam Salehi for five minutes.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Belliveau, I'll direct my very short question to you, for a short answer.

Concern has been expressed that the government has been slow in rolling out Bill C-41. We knew there was a humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan and in other places as well.

Has your organization been adversely affected in any way by that delay? Have you been prevented from doing some important work you typically would have done, had Bill C-41 been in place a year ago?

[Claude Maon]

Thank you.

I also want to mention something on security for Ms. McPherson about undermining the principles that I just mentioned, impartiality and neutrality. These are the principles that grant an access to a population, and they're also the principles that grant us protection under the Geneva Conventions. This authorization process would further increase security risks for MSF in the field, because those fields are volatile contexts. In these contexts, we—MSF— would be wrongly presented as agents of the Canadian state. It would be wrong, because we are neutral and impartial. Through that authorization process, we would appear as agents of a country—a state—that has maybe publicly designated some non-state armed groups as terrorists or called for their arrest.

At the same time, Bill C-41's proposal would also give its approval stamp to impartial humanitarian organizations such as MSF to carry out, or not, their activities in territories controlled by those very same armed groups, so attacks could actually also target humanitarian personnel who are with organizations that have so far appeared as neutral and impartial but may no longer appear as such and through the authorization process implementation would rather be presented as being linked to state diplomacy or politics. This would also be a massive risk for humanitarians, including Canadian humanitarians.

[Joseph Belliveau]

With MSF, as with any organization, we have a duty of care to staff. The way that the authorization regime is set up in Bill C-41 poses risks to individuals. The sharing and the providing of personal data and information in such a way that we don't know how that information will be used, where it will be stored or how many agencies will have access to it will pose at least unknown risks to our staff.

We know from just the feedback we've had since Bill C-41 came out that staff working for MSF will be deterred from wanting to continue to work for the organization, because they don't know where their personal data will be stored or what purposes it will be used for.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Five minutes is very short.

First of all, I'd like to thank our witnesses for being with us today. Certainly, I'd like to thank you, Dr. West, for the work you do and for raising in particular the humanitarian context in which these things are happening. I think sometimes that does get lost when we start to talk about the laws. We are not doing this in any context. This is not happening in contexts in which it is easy to work. This is happening in contexts that are very difficult, so thank you.

I'm going to start by asking some questions of MSF, which was the very first organization I ever volunteered with, so it has a special place in my heart. I was 19, so it was a very long time ago.

I read the brief you provided to the committee. In your brief, you refer to the fact that the current authorization regime in Bill C-41 may also pose security risks to Canadian humanitarian staff working for organizations like MSF. You spoke a little about that in your testimony. Can you elaborate on that for me, please?

[Joseph Belliveau]

I think it's pretty clear from what we've been saying so far that we think that an exemption is possible. That is the way to go. We think that it could be expedited relatively simply.

If you back up a little bit, you will see that this problem has existed since the Anti-terrorism Act was put in place in 2001. It created this ambiguity.

Already then, there wasn't an exemption carved out for humanitarian action, so for all of these years, humanitarian actors were left questioning whether or not they might run afoul of the Criminal Code. Now the stakes are raised. The government has come forward and said that it thinks it has a solution here. It doesn't think Bill C-41 is the right solution, but it does feel that we could introduce language within Bill C-41 that would actually clarify, all the way back to the Anti-terrorism Act, that we respect IHL—which Canada clearly does—and that when humanitarians are operating in an IHL context, they will not run afoul of the Criminal Code.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses who are here, either virtually or in person.

The first disappointment with Bill C‑41 is that it took far too long to introduce. On that, we can all agree. Many members of the government and the opposition have worked very hard on this issue, but it's taken too long.

Now that the bill has been introduced, it's not sitting well with everyone, especially not the humanitarian organizations. So here we are in a bit of a cul-de-sac.

Personally, I definitely want to see this resolved as quickly as possible. I think the main goal of members here is to as quickly as possible get humanitarian aid to Afghanistan and other parts of the world where terrorist entities control areas.

We have two options: Either we decide to address the bill's technicalities and the way it's put together, or we change it completely and apply for a humanitarian exemption.

What do you feel is more important? Is it coming to a quick conclusion so we can vote on the bill? Should we instead change the bill outright and fight as long as possible for a humanitarian exemption?

Mr. Belliveau, perhaps you want to answer this question?

[Joseph Belliveau]

Sure.

I think there's a high risk of politicization on both sides of the fence.

There's a high risk on this side. Once you start this authorization process and have to submit all of this information to all of these government agencies, there is a risk, either now or in the future, that it could be used for purposes beyond the scope of what Bill C-41 is about.

On the other side of the fence, it's the way we get perceived. We depend on being perceived as neutral and consistently impartial. If we're perceived as not holding up to those principles, then we're not going to be able to negotiate our access in places where—listed or otherwise—armed groups are operating.

In sum, you could get politicization on both sides.

[Joseph Belliveau, Executive Director, Doctors Without Borders]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For the past 52 years, and today in over 70 countries, Doctors Without Borders or Médecins Sans Frontières, MSF, has alleviated suffering through medical care consistent with the fundamental principles of humanitarian aid: humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence, and in line with medical ethics. MSF has no other purpose than fulfilling this social function.

Here in Canada, more than 180,000 Canadians support MSF, based on their trust and confidence in what we do. This has allowed us to send 267 Canadians and more than $84 million to our programs around the world in 2022.

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

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

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

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

Bill C-41 would require humanitarians to seek case-by-case permission for what they already have the legal right to do under IHL, but this is not simply duplication: The process itself in which authorization would be required from at least two ministries and up to nine governmental agencies would severely erode the practical agility, as well as the principles enshrined in IHL, that enable effective humanitarian aid delivery. Bill C-41's potentially onerous authorization process would divert humanitarian resources and delay our responsiveness in emergencies like the recent Syria-Turkey earthquake, where lives hang in the balance and every hour counts.

The process would also create an intelligence windfall for Canadian security agencies, including access to employee personal data that these agencies would otherwise not have reason to collect, data that could be used for purposes beyond the scope of Bill C-41. This would deter Canadians from working for humanitarian organizations.

Further, by placing humanitarians under unprecedented government scrutiny and control, Bill C-41 would compromise our independence as well as the neutrality upon which we depend to negotiate access and gain security assurances from armed groups. Moreover, denying authorization or directing where and what activities are permitted would profoundly undermine the fundamental principles of humanity and impartiality that guide our response on human needs alone.

Bill C-41 in its current form would embed a presumption of criminality in the Criminal Code, including for humanitarian action, by shifting the burden of proof of non-criminality onto the humanitarian actor. MSF believes this must and can be changed through a standing humanitarian exemption, clarified through relatively straightforward amendments to Bill C-41 that would effectively remove humanitarian action from the scope of criminality within the Criminal Code. A standing exemption would be consistent with IHL, UN Security Council resolutions, other states' counterterror laws, Canadian common law and Canada's reputation for humanitarianism.

Members of the committee, MSF worked in Afghanistan before the Taliban takeover, and continued after the takeover, on the same basis on which we work all over the world in places where state and non-state armed groups operate—the basis of international humanitarian law. MSF's purpose is solely humanitarian. For this we should neither be criminalized nor subject to the burden of continually seeking authorization for doing precisely what we exist to do.

Thank you.

[Dr. Leah West, Assistant Professor, Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University, As an Individual]

Thank you for having me.

I'd like to begin by saying that I am strongly in favour of amendments to the Criminal Code to facilitate the funding and delivery of humanitarian aid and development assistance in areas that may be controlled by entities listed by the international community or the Canadian government as terrorists. The listing of terrorist entities by both the UN and in Canada is a political process. That process should not condemn those who live under these regimes to suffer from starvation or lack of medical care and education.

I believe that Bill C-41 is an honest attempt to strike a balance between the need to ensure terrorist organizations do not benefit from the funds brought into these areas of control by NGOs and government agencies and the need for NGOs and agencies to provide humanitarian and development assistance. However, I think a few amendments are required to better strike that balance.

First, I believe the bill should include a humanitarian exception to the current subsection 83.03(b) of the Criminal Code, as recommended by the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights. Specifically, this exemption could mirror the language already in the definition of “terrorist activity” in section 83.01 of the Criminal Code by stipulating that subsection 83.03(2) does not apply to the provision of humanitarian assistance during an armed conflict and that at the time and the place of its provision is in accordance with customary international law or conventional international law applicable to the conflict.

For those activities that do not fall within this exception—for example, education and other development-type aids that do not meet the definition of “humanitarian assistance” under international humanitarian law—organizations could apply for an authorization as set out in the draft bill. This amendment would ensure that the direst needs of populations subject to an armed conflict could receive the most critical aid from humanitarian organizations without the added burden of those organizations seeking an authorization from the Government of Canada.

Second, under the authorization regime, the factors that the ministers of public safety may consider in their security reviews are vague and raise concerns under section 2 of the charter, namely subsection 2(d), which protects freedom of association.

Specifically, as Ms. Davis mentioned, proposed paragraph 83.032(10)(a) currently states the factor the minister may consider is “whether the applicant or any person who is to be involved in carrying out the activity proposed in the application has any links to a terrorist group”. It is notable that the term “links” is not used elsewhere in Canadian law to capture personal relationships, but rather it is used to describe a physical connection or to describe a means of communication, such as a video link.

This novel use of this vague term in this context poses a number of concerns. First, conceivably, the term “links” captures any form of personal connection, however remote, between anyone within the organization and those who may assist the organization in providing aid. I have met with ISIS members in detention and worked with their families to advocate their release. Am I linked to ISIS?

Humanitarian organizations often need to have relationships with all parties to a conflict to do their jobs. It is literally part of the mandate of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent.

I also served in Afghanistan, and I know that for a time, almost everyone in Afghanistan had some sort of link to someone in al Qaeda or Taliban to some extent. We're talking about places like Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, and potentially Syria and Nigeria. This is not a bill designed for authorizing activities in environments like the one here in Canada, where connections to members who may be affiliated with terrorist organizations are a rarity.

Lastly, the charter protects freedom of association. It is for this reason that we do not criminalize mere membership in a terrorist organization in Canada. Denying an authorization on the basis of mere association with a terrorist group means criminalizing the work of humanitarian organizations in places like Afghanistan, where their work is most desperately needed.

For this reason, I believe that this paragraph should be struck from the legislation.

These two amendments would ensure a more equitable balance between security and the humanitarian needs of affected populations. Ultimately, however, the success of this authorization regime will be entirely dependent on the transparency of the process and ensuring that there are sufficient resources to process applications quickly and fairly.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I'm calling the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 59 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the House order of March 27, 2023, the committee is continuing its study of Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely by using the Zoom application.

I won't go into Zoom, because I think it's only our analysts online right now, so I think we should be—

Oh, and we have one panellist, so I will go through the Zoom.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking. With regard to interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of floor, English or French. Those in the room can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. If members in the room wish to speak, please raise your hand. Members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

For the first hour of this meeting, we have, as individuals, Jessica Davis, president, Insight Threat Intelligence, and Dr. Leah West, assistant professor from the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University.

From Doctors Without Borders, we have Joseph Belliveau, executive director, and I think we have Claude Maon via video conference.

Welcome to you all. You will have five minutes as individuals, and the Doctors Without Borders group will have five minutes. Then we will commence questions right after that.

I will go to Jessica Davis for five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I want to thank everyone. That concludes our round of questions.

Thank you to all the witnesses.

I have just two items of business left.

There is a motion for a deadline to submit amendments for the purpose of the clause-by-clause study of Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code and make consequential amendments to other acts. It is “that...the deadline to submit amendments be Thursday, April 20, at 5 p.m.”

Is there someone proposing the motion?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I don't have a great deal of time available to me, I will ask more technical questions.

Under Bill C‑41, it's up to the Department of Foreign Affairs or the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to determine if "that activity responds to a real and important need in that geographic area" under the control of a terrorist group. It will also be up to them to determine if "the applicant is capable of administering funds, and reporting on that administration, in a manner that is transparent and accountable".

Personally, I want to know which criteria will be used to determine if objectives are being met.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you. That's a good answer.

There has been quite a bit of evidence about the process that has been proposed under Bill C-41. If my understanding is correct, it is that an applicant for an exemption would have to go first to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and/or the Minister of Immigration.

I'm not quite clear on what the process is. Why does it have to be that process, if ultimately the decision is going to be in the hands of the Minister of Public Safety? Why not go to the Minister of Public Safety immediately, to speed up the application process?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you to all of the witnesses for being here—all experts in their field.

We're talking about Bill C-41, which would open the door for humanitarian aid by Canadian organizations that are otherwise prohibited from doing work in certain areas of the world on account of Canada's strict anti-terrorist laws.

Now, generally we agree with that. However, as you heard from a number of the questioners, there is deep concern about the government's apparent slow reaction to a crisis, particularly in Afghanistan.

I'm looking at the report of the special Afghan committee, which was issued some time in June 2022, and particularly at evidence by Michael Messenger on March 31, 2021. More than a year ago, this is what he had to say: “Based on external legal advice, our understanding is that the Minister of Public Safety could provide an exemption to the restrictive provisions through section 83.09 of the Criminal Code.” That's existing legislation. He went on to say, “In fact, we believe he and his department have an urgent obligation to do so.”

My question is, why wasn't section 83.09 used? Would it have been sufficient? Did World Vision even make an application for exemption at that time?

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

So we're going to have to wrap our minds around it, but I understand. As I said, it's not at all a question to put anyone on the spot; rather, it's for us to gain some understanding.

I posed the question to all the ministers. They all said it was really complicated and complex, and that's why it took time to come up with Bill C‑41. That means there were other options on the table. If this bill had been the only option, it would have been written a long time ago and we would not have waited all this time.

You participated in those conversations. What other options did different departments put on the table to tackle the problem?

[Robert Brookfield]

As a technical point, I would note that at issue is 83.03(b), which prohibits providing information to a terrorist group. A terrorist group then includes both listed and unlisted terrorist groups.

The goal of Bill C-41 is to allow entities or organizations, if they wish to apply to be exempted from potential criminal liability from that provision, to seek an exemption. There is authorization, and that would apply to any group they are concerned that they might be dealing with, whether listed or unlisted.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

I also understand that a Bill C-41 charter statement was tabled on March 21 and is available on the Department of Justice website. Can you please confirm that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Ms. McPherson.

I want to thank Minister Mendicino for taking the time to explain and answer questions on Bill C-41.

I'm going to ask the representatives from the department to stay back.

We'll suspend for a few minutes.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for your attendance, Minister and department officials.

I want to continue the discussion or the Q and A that Ms. McPherson finished off with. One of the questions I was going to ask is how this particular piece of legislation was framed in terms of how other democratic nations across the world have dealt with this humanitarian crisis. I get the impression, when I listen to how her question is framed and, Minister, to your responses, that Bill C-41 appears to be an outlier in the sense that other nations are currently providing humanitarian exceptions and getting humanitarian aid to Afghanistan a hell of a lot quicker than Canada is. Is that a fair assessment?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Again, I say this with respect, but I am not here to defend the position of the United States or any other country. I am here to articulate the rationale for Bill C-41, and I think the government has put forward a reasonable and compelling case.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's nice to be in your committee today.

Thank you for being here, Minister.

Thank you, all of you, for being here and providing your testimony.

I have to say that I worked for about 20 years in the non-profit international development and humanitarian sector before I became a politician, so after 18 months of waiting for this legislation, I was expecting something good. Unfortunately, that's not what I see with Bill C-41, so forgive me, but I will speak with my international development hat on today.

You spoke about the balance needed between preventing funding going to terrorists versus helping humanitarian.... With all due respect, Minister, you got the balance wrong on this one. I say this for a number of different reasons.

First of all, we're creating barriers to humanitarian aid. I wrote to you immediately when this legislation came forward, and I didn't get much of a response. I outlined exactly why this legislation doesn't do what you think this legislation should do. I have lots of concerns about how it will be implemented and how we are going to get an overstretched and under-resourced Global Affairs Canada to do this work.

Ultimately, what this does is interfere with international humanitarian law. You talked about the balance. You talked about how this was the best thing you thought could happen.

Why do you think the Canadian government felt that this was the best thing to happen, when we look at governments like Australia, the EU, New Zealand, Switzerland, the U.K. and the United States, and they all listened to the experts in their field? They listened to the experts who do this work, who asked for a humanitarian carve-out.

Why did Canada choose to not go with a humanitarian carve-out when, very clearly, other countries did? I think we all know that other countries know exactly what they are doing on the ground. They have respect for humanitarian assistance. They have respect for anti-terrorism legislation.

However, Canada is the only one that put barriers up for humanitarian organizations, instead of making it easier for them to be on the ground, doing the work and helping Afghans.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Yes.

There are other mechanisms and opportunities, but I'd like to emphasize—this is the key point—that the government is getting its information from our discussions with organizations and human rights lawyers.

We believe that Bill C‑41 strikes a very good and effective balance that fosters transparency and integrity, as well as the values of safeguarding human rights.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and colleagues.

By way of some housekeeping, I am very pleased to be joined by a number of colleagues, as you pointed out, Mr. Chair, from my department of Public Safety, from Global Affairs, from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and, of course, from Justice. I am seated next to Monsieur Aubertin-Giguère, who is one of our officials from Public Safety.

I think you also said that I was the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. I know our colleague, Minister Bill Blair, might take some umbrage at that. I say that with a bit of a smile. He's doing a very able job at emergency preparedness, in his capacity as minister of that portfolio.

On to the subject matter before us, I am very pleased to be able to discuss Bill C-41 with all of you, which is an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Colleagues, as you will know, Bill C-41 creates an authorization regime to facilitate the delivery of international assistance in geographic areas controlled by a terrorist group as defined in the Criminal Code.

As you all know, and given the state of affairs in Afghanistan and other troubled regions of the world in which there are conflicts, this bill is crucial.

Allow me to explain. As I implored all members when our government tabled this legislation, there is a humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. After four decades of conflict, political and economic instability and a global pandemic, the Taliban's takeover in August 2021 exacerbated an already dire situation.

Under the Taliban regime, we have seen violence, the erosion of fundamental human rights, and the brutal assault, torture and killing of women, girls and religious and ethnic minorities.

They require help with such basic aspects of life as food, health care, shelter, protection and education.

Canada continues to do everything in its power to assist the people of Afghanistan. I would note that our ambitious commitment to welcome at least 40,000 Afghan refugees has hit a significant milestone. Very recently, we just welcomed the 30,000th Afghan refugee on Canadian soil. That is something that I think ought to be celebrated, as those individuals will now have the chance of a better life.

Currently, the Criminal Code contains strong counter-terrorism financing provisions. Specifically, under paragraph 83.03(b), it is prohibited to directly or indirectly provide or make property available knowing it could be used by or will benefit a terrorist group.

These provisions have a significant impact on Canada's ability to deliver aid and other forms of international assistance, including in Afghanistan. That's because, although the Taliban is the de facto authority of Afghanistan, it remains a listed terrorist entity under Canada's Criminal Code. As such, aid delivery has the potential to benefit the Taliban, thereby contravening the Criminal Code.

Canadian organizations, including non-profit aid groups and departments of the Government of Canada, risk inadvertently breaking the law if they attempt to provide aid within Afghanistan. Bill C-41 will provide clarity and assurance for Canadian organizations that they are not committing a terrorism offence when acting within the scope of the authorization that is contemplated within the bill.

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

Mr. Chair, our government considered all possible remedies, including the possibility of a humanitarian exemption to the existing law; however, a statutory carve-out would not provide, in our submission, the same security checks and balances, and it would risk greater abuse of the provision. The approach outlined in Bill C-41 best mitigates those risks by potential terrorist actors.

Banks and financial institutions have also called for these security measures.

Allow me to outline the bill's extensive guardrails. This begins with collaboration across various portfolios, some of which are represented at the table with me today. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and/or the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship would first refer applications to me in my capacity as the Minister of Public Safety.

Moreover, the referring minister would also need to be satisfied that the applicant is capable of administering funds in high-risk environments, and effectively reporting on that administration.

Once a referral has been received, the national security community would conduct a security review to assess the impact of granting the authorization on terrorism financing.

This process would consider whether the applicants have links to terrorist groups or activities. The authorization could be granted once I am satisfied, in my capacity as the Minister of Public Safety, that there is no practical way of undertaking the proposed activity without a risk of terrorist financing and that the benefits outweigh the associated risks.

The assessment will take into account the referral received from the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Minister of Immigration, the security review findings, the measures to mitigate risks, and any other factors considered appropriate. If an application is refused, those applicants would be able to seek recourse through judicial review.

Authorizations would be granted for a period of up to five years and would apply to any person or organization involved in carrying out the authorized activity.

Authorizations may be revoked if the applicants fail to comply with the conditions and terms that are set out within it. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the RCMP, the Communications Security Establishment and the Canada Revenue Agency will also be involved in security reviews.

To ensure that the authorization regime is held accountable, as Minister of Public Safety I would provide an annual report on the regime and conduct a comprehensive review within five years of the bill's coming into force.

The bill sets forward clear operational guidance, and the application process is free.

Let me be clear. Terrorist financing remains a criminal offence and a serious threat to our interests both domestically and abroad, and authorization would not shield efforts to benefit a terrorist group. Such activities would remain criminal.

It is vital that Canada continue to provide international assistance in Afghanistan, as well as in other regions where there is protracted conflict. To facilitate this and prepare for future situations posing similar constraints, the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code are critical. It is transparent and charter-compliant, and the provisions that are set out in this bill are in accordance with the law.

Bill C‑41 would help address immediate needs in Afghanistan, and also adapt to future needs.

Today and throughout our history, Canada continues to help the global community.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to provide some prefacing remarks. I also want to take a moment to thank all the members of this committee for their advocacy and their leadership in bringing this important issue to the fore. We now have an opportunity to remedy some of the constraints that have previously prevented Canada from doing more to help the people of Afghanistan and other vulnerable individuals who have come under the thumb of autocratic and oppressive regimes.

I now look forward to your questions and comments.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 58 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the House order of March 27, 2023, the committee is beginning its study on Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Actually, everyone is attending in person today, so I won't go through the hybrid format.

For the minister and anyone who's new—I think we have a lot of new members today—I use cue cards. When you're down to 30 seconds, I will raise the yellow cue card. When you're out of time, I'll use the red. I will ask you to wrap up with that, so I don't have to interrupt you.

We are pleased to welcome the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Honourable Marco Mendicino. Welcome, Minister.

Today we also have, from Public Safety, Sébastien Aubertin-Giguère, assistant deputy minister of the national and cyber security branch. From the Department of Justice we have Robert Brookfield, director general and senior general counsel of the criminal policy section, and Glenn Gilmour, counsel of the criminal law policy section. From Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada we have Selena Beattie, director general of policy and outreach for the Afghanistan sector.

I think we might have some others as well. We welcome you and are glad to have you here.

Minister, you'll have the floor for 10 minutes, as usual. Your opening remarks will be followed by questions from the members of the committee.

The floor is yours.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

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

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

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Let me finish my response, please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister.

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

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citizenship and Immigration

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The motion that came from the standing committee reads:

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

That is what we often refer to as the IRGC.

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

That response is well under way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

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

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

Criminal Code

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for presenting some points of view that are indeed very important.

From the beginning, we brought in a number of measures to temporarily fulfill our commitment to help the Afghan people. However, these measures have their limits.

When we introduced Bill C-41, representatives from the Red Cross were right there beside us, talking about the additional work they would be able to do thanks to this bill.

Of course, we are in the House to debate this bill, and Parliament must pass it. We still want to improve it. Recommendations were made at the special committee, and this legislation needs to pass as quickly as possible.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, let us be clear. Essentially, Bill C-41 is about finding mechanisms to allow trustworthy organizations to go and help the local population.

A large part of the parliamentary secretary's speech was about the welcome that Afghans have received in Canada, but now we are talking about ways to help the locals. For example, under the current laws, the Red Cross cannot go into Afghanistan to help.

Does the parliamentary secretary really believe that Bill C-41 strikes the right kind of balance between sanctions against terrorists and exceptional humanitarian assistance measures?

Many organizations, as well as the opposition parties, have intervened to say that they are very concerned that the bill does not strike that balance.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, we definitely are responding to the situation in Afghanistan, but I also look at Mali, and I also look at what is happening down in Haiti right now. There are a number of other failed states where we see gangs and terrorist organizations in control. I worry about Lebanon and the increasing influence that Hezbollah has there as the country continues to try to recover after the massive blast in Beirut, with all the damage and lives lost.

That is why I do like some of the parts of Bill C-41 that would provide flexibility to the minister and the department to do reviews more than every five years. They could do them as they see fit. I would hope the government would listen to parliamentarians, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and the International Subcommittee on Human Rights. If they were to raise red flags, I hope the government would act upon them to ensure that, where we see dollars being diverted illegally into terrorist organizations or illegitimate governments, it can put a stop to any fundraising activities or dollars flowing to aid organizations to ensure we are not directly or indirectly financing terrorism.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise in the House and speak to Bill C-41. I am going to be supporting this bill to get it to committee so it can undergo the vigorous review it needs to ease the concerns Canadians have. There are organizations that want to provide humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan in particular, but also to other areas of the world where terrorist organizations are in control, and they need to be able to do so without any repercussions here in Canada.

As we know, this bill would make some major changes to the Criminal Code to impact those individuals and organizations that are trying to help people who are the least privileged in the world and who are in crisis right now, especially in Afghanistan. There are over four million people who are starving. There is a lack of food and resources available to support the citizens. Those are largely women, girls and single-family units that do not have the ability to raise money.

In saying that, I want to first and foremost pay tribute to the brave women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces who served in the conflict in Afghanistan. Over 40,000 Canadians went to war in Afghanistan against al Qaeda and against the Taliban because of the terrorist attacks of 9/11. They served from 2001 to 2011, and the last of our troops came home in 2014.

We witnessed 165 Canadians die; 158 of them were brave soldiers of the Canadian Armed Forces and seven of them were civilians who were there assisting our forces, assisting the Government of Canada, working on diplomatic missions and working on things like humanitarian relief.

We have seen the consequences of that war for those who served. Thousands have come back with both physical and invisible injuries, whether it is PTSD and other operational stress injuries, or actual physical injuries, such as missing limbs. This still impacts our veteran community with a high level of suicide. Over 2,000 members were physically wounded or injured while serving in Afghanistan, and we have to continue to be with them.

I want to make the point that Canada committed itself to this war against terror in Afghanistan. It cost us in lives, we spilled blood and we spent a good portion of the treasury in fighting against the Taliban. It cost $18 billion just in military contributions, as well as in provincial reconstruction.

In addition to that, another $3.9 billion over two decades, from 2001 to 2021, was spent in humanitarian assistance building schools, building roads and infrastructure, and providing meals. We made sure Afghanistan converted from a poppy agricultural industry providing opium and other opioids on the illicit drug trafficking market around the world, to actual commodities it could trade legally in the global context that would provide a better, more sustainable way of life.

However, here we are today with an illegitimate government led by Taliban leaders who were complicit in the crimes against humanity that we witnessed before 2001 and that they are now undertaking today in Afghanistan. There are an illegitimate prime minister, Mullah Mohammad Hassan Akhund, and supreme leader, Mullah Haibatullah Akhunzada. These are people who helped orchestrate attacks against our own soldiers and our own civilians working in Afghanistan.

They have banned girls and women from going to school. They have taken most women out of the workforce so they are unable to provide for their families. They have reinstated the mandatory wearing of the burka, and other very misogynistic and chauvinistic policies that continue to trample on the rights of women, minority groups and minority religions.

We know that the Taliban today is actively hunting those Afghans who worked alongside our Canadian Armed Forces as interpreters, truck drivers and support workers in our military bases and forward operating locations throughout the Panjwai district where Canada served, and in Kandahar. Something we need to remember is that those we fought against are again back in control. We all saw on TV how it played out in 2021, as Afghans ran to planes to get out of the country, climbing aboard wherever they could. They were begging us to come back and begging Canada, the United States and others to come get those who wanted to go to our countries.

We knew this was coming as well. We knew that the U.S. had announced it was going to do its drawdown in 2021 when it announced it the previous year. Global Affairs Canada was raising this with the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, saying that we had to act to get our Canadians, as well as our friends and allies, out.

It was not until the actual collapse of Kabul started that we finally saw some action. The first to come out was our diplomat corps, on a half-empty airplane. It was a disappointment for all Canadians and an embarrassment for the government, that we could have saved more and decided not to.

Over 17,000 Afghans who served with Canada made application to come here. Over 11,000 of them have been approved, and over the past three years, about 9,500 have been able to make it to Canada. A lot of us, in our offices, continue to advocate and find ways out for those who served alongside our forces. We had some luck a couple of weeks ago in having another Afghan interpreter get to safety here in Canada, but the support in Afghanistan from the government is non-existent.

We know that these Criminal Code amendments are necessary to ensure that those out there wanting to do God's work in Afghanistan would not be turned into people who are considered complicit in terrorism. We want to make sure that organizations like World Vision, the Red Cross and Red Crescent are able to go out there and help those in need without having to worry about whether they are going to be charged back here in Canada.

However, we have to be diligent, and one thing we need to find out through committee study is how the government would continue to monitor the situation. How would the government decide whether organizations are being coerced or are having to pay big bribes to the Taliban and other terrorist organizations around the world and essentially redirect money that would help the terrorist activity, the human rights violations and the atrocities that we, all too often, are witnessing?

We have to be diligent and vigilant in making sure the government and the department are continuing to oversee this. As we look at Bill C-41 and start providing exemptions for different organizations and individuals, we have to go into this with eyes wide open. We have witnessed other terrorist organizations raising money here in Canada. Hamas, Hezbollah and ISIS all have been able to raise funds in the past to fund their terrorist activities around the world, so we have to be very diligent.

The House of Commons passed a motion unanimously in 2018 recognizing the IRGC, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran, as a terrorist entity. If the Government of Canada would finally list it as a terrorist organization, we could also make sure it could not raise money here in Canada now that it does actually have assets.

Though I support getting this bill to committee and making sure we provide relief to those who need it the most, the most disadvantaged people in the world, we also have to be extremely critical in our analysis at committee to ensure that those who want to have other nefarious means do not exploit this for their own terrorist ideologies.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-41, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

The title of Bill C-41 is a bland one, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts, but the impact on people's lives is exciting. This bill is about providing help and hope for those in desperate need. It highlights the Canadian tradition of caring for those in other countries.

As we are all aware, the situation in states under terrorist rule can leave innocent people in dire need. As a member of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, I have heard many tragic reports from those with first-hand experience of war and authoritarian regimes where basic human rights are not recognized. As someone who came to Canada from a war zone, I can empathize with those innocent people who did not choose the authoritarian regimes that they may be forced to accept.

Canadian values of helping those in need are rooted in a Christian humanitarian world view. We want to help where we are able, and Bill C-41 would allow us to do just that. Canada does not take unilateral military action against aggressive regimes. Our way is to work co-operatively with like-minded countries for the benefit of everyone, and while military force is sometimes necessary, building international consensus can take time. While that is happening, innocent people can suffer. This legislation attempts to address that suffering.

For example, Canada does not recognize the legality of the Taliban government in Afghanistan, as the Taliban is a terrorist entity. We have no relations with it. We do not support terrorists. However, the people of Afghanistan are in need and their terrorist government has no desire to help them. Drastic changes are needed in states like Afghanistan, but more war is not the answer. This bill is a sign that Canada recognizes that. As we deal with the reality of the situation in Afghanistan and elsewhere, this bill would allow us to assist the critical organizations involved in providing immediate aid to those people most in need.

Our role as parliamentarians should be to have a free and open debate about the specifics of Bill C-41, which includes conducting an adequate study in committee. However, we should not be delaying the passing of this bill. To achieve this goal, I would suggest that the justice committee launch a prestudy on this bill. By doing so, we would allow a thorough study of this act and provide interested Canadians the opportunity to debate and understand the specific details of what Bill C-41 has to offer.

Canadians do not want to endorse non-democratic states. However, the on-the-ground support offered through various activist-led operations should not be hindered due to the oppressive cultural and political climate entrenched in these states. We need to promote “Women, Life, Freedom” in these areas. Real changes have to start somewhere. This bill has the potential to provide a beacon of hope to those in dire need of humanitarian aid. There is also the potential to leave a distasteful legacy if we in this House fail to launch a swift and adequate study of this bill.

It is important to the Canadian people that we stick to our true democratic values. Because of this, upholding the legacy of honourable success stories should be of utmost importance. The Canadian war efforts from 2001 and 2014 in Afghanistan highlighted the tragic failure of democracy against a terrorist stronghold. Since the reoccupation by the Taliban in 2021, it has been made abundantly clear that our approach was not effective in creating lasting change.

Our Canadian troops heard first-hand the stories of Afghan citizens of repression under the Taliban. They not only fought for their Canada, but they also fought for the good, innocent people they grew to love in their day-to-day lives. The grim situations they observed first-hand in Afghanistan should be enough for us to see that this bill, which would allow aid groups to meet the needs of the desperate without fear of criminal charges, should be supported.

One of my staffers, whose mother served with our troops in Afghanistan, has recounted the stories her mother shared of her time serving there protecting the people from the Taliban. As she struggled to reintegrate into the Canadian way of life upon returning, she found herself facing deep grief and inner turmoil as the Taliban once again seized power 13 years after she had physically left the country.

My colleagues, that mother's experience is not hers alone.

Canadian troops put their lives on the line not only for their country, but to help Afghan women and children have hope of a better life. Years of conflict and violence led to a humanitarian crisis that shattered the innocence of these people. Many were left with the impression that dangerous and unethical acts are how one earns the love desired from one's parents. Their sense of purpose in life is determined by the warped world view of the Taliban.

No child should have to grow up in fear, but that is the situation in Afghanistan. While we cannot do anything at this point about the government that creates that fear, with Bill C-41 we can probably do something to help with the humanitarian crisis the Taliban has created. We owe it to our veterans and to our fallen soldiers to continue the effort toward a better humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. We cannot let their sacrifices be in vain.

Bill C-41 would allow us, as Canadians, to help the immediate situation on the ground while other work is being done behind the scenes to influence the meaningful societal shift required.

With that in mind, I believe approaching the situation from both the top down and the bottom up should be the most effective way of inciting the change we seek.

This bill provides the foundation that assists on-the-ground organizations to operate in terrorist-run states. However, we must tread carefully. Bill C-41 still needs work. The people of Afghanistan, and others, still need help. We must ensure this bill is swiftly examined and improvements adopted.

We might, for example, want to look at our duty to protect Canadians who become targets of oppression in states like Afghanistan. Citizens who courageously go to these states to provide humanitarian aid to the suffering victims of these states know the Government of Canada will support them in any way it can.

Many questions will arise as this bill progresses through this House and we should allow some time to address the concerns of our colleagues in a thorough but timely fashion. A prestudy by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights would assist in this goal.

To be quite honest, the real question is whether Liberal government members are serious about providing protection for aid organizations and will make it a priority or whether it will be consigned to the legislative back burner as not important. Human lives are at stake. The choice is theirs.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of things to say.

First of all, my colleague referred to Ukrainian refugees, but I am not sure if he perhaps failed to understand that the government does not list them as refugees, so they are not given the protection that refugees should have in our community.

The other thing he talked about is Afghan refugees. I have to tell him that I was in my office during the last constituency week talking to interpreters who have had their families and co-workers left behind by this government. I have talked to interpreters who supported our military, who supported our country, who have been left behind.

Yes, absolutely, I will say that we have been able to bring many people here from Afghanistan and from Ukraine, but I will not say that we have done a good job of it, that we have not left behind people to whom we had deep obligations. That is not anything to do with Bill C-41, which is an entirely different thing.

If we are not going to bring people out of their country so they can survive a genocidal terrorist regime in their own country, I do have to tell the member that humanitarian aid is the support we can give them.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have to say I was a bit nervous there for a minute after the Conservatives made it so I was unable to give my remarks last week. I was worried that was going to happen again. I am quite happy they are just cold at the moment.

As always, it is my great delight to stand in this House and represent the people of Edmonton Strathcona. Today, we are talking about something that is very close to my heart and something that I have been working on for most of my career. While I am delighted to stand representing the people of Edmonton Strathcona, I am not delighted to be having this conversation at this moment in time.

In February 2021, six months before the fall of Kabul, I wrote to Mr. Garneau, the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time, and I explained to him what was going to happen in August of 2021 if the Canadian government did not take action. I raised that again during question period in May 2021 and spoke about how people in Afghanistan needed Canada to stand up.

We all know what happened in August 2021. We all know how we failed the people of Afghanistan in August 2021. We know the reasons for it. I am not going to get into that here. We failed them on immigration. We failed them on humanitarian aid. We failed the people of Afghanistan in so many different ways.

Today, we are talking about a bill that is supposed to fix that failure. Today, we are talking about Bill C-41, which is a humanitarian carve-out. Let me correct that; it is supposed to be a humanitarian carve-out for humanitarian organizations.

We are in this place right now debating a bill that took 18 months to come to fruition, while so many Afghans suffered and starved. The government took 18 months. What we have right now is not even what the humanitarian sector asked for. It is not even what we have been calling for the past 18 months.

I stood in this House and asked for a humanitarian carve-out for humanitarian organizations so that Canadians who wanted to help in Afghanistan could do that and so that Canadians who have decades of experience working with the people in Afghanistan could do that.

I raised that in the House on November 30, 2021. I asked if the minister, at the time, was going to act with the urgency required to make sure there was a humanitarian carve-out in place so that Canadian organizations could work in Afghanistan and could help people in Afghanistan who were suffering so much under the current regime.

Instead, what we have now is a bill that will limit the abilities of humanitarian organizations. Let us make this very clear: This is not just about Afghanistan. This is about all humanitarian contexts. What we decide with this legislation will have impacts in Gaza and Yemen, and it will have impacts in all kinds of humanitarian contexts. While we are looking at it within the scope of Afghanistan right now, it is not just about Afghanistan and every single person needs to understand that.

I was speaking to experts. I am sure many of us spoke to experts within the humanitarian sector. MSF recently put in a published response to Bill C-41. It said:

Criminalizing Canadian humanitarian agencies or their staff for working in territories controlled by terrorist groups would be contrary to existing international norms and laws, most notably the Geneva Conventions, and might even be unconstitutional. There is legal precedent in Canada supporting the claim that, owing to the life-saving purpose of humanitarian aid, it cannot be considered criminal to provide it, even when a terrorist group may accrue some benefit from that aid.

MSF works in some of the most horrendous circumstances in this world. It is saying that this legislation does not meet the needs that needs to be met. I have heard some interesting things.

I have spoken to the Minister of Public Safety, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of International Development. I have spoken to all these ministers and asked, “Who is responsible, and when is it coming?” I have also listened to all three ministers tell me that it is someone else's problem, that it is someone else's fault and not to worry, that someone else is dealing with it or that it is too complex for them to undertake.

I want to tell members what some of the other countries have done. The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade announced that:

Australia [would implement] the [UN Security Council's humanitarian] exemption immediately relying [upon] the Charter of the United Nations Act 1945. Accordingly, assistance or activities covered by [the Security Council's exemption]...do not constitute an offence under Australian sanctions laws.

The United Kingdom amended its regulations to indicate that its financing prohibition does not cover the delivery of humanitarian assistance or other activities that support basic human needs in Afghanistan. There is also the U.S. and the European Union. They all amended their legislation. In fact, with respect to the United Nations, on December 22, 2021, the UN Security Council decided through resolution 2615, the drafting of which was spearheaded by the United States, “that humanitarian assistance and other activities that support basic human needs in Afghanistan” do not violate the council's sanctions regime.

The council also specified:

[T]hat the processing and payment of funds, other financial assets or economic resources, and the provision of goods and services necessary to ensure the timely delivery of such assistance or to support such activities are permitted.

That happened on December 22, 2021. Therefore, countries around the world that are our allies who also believe in the rule of law, humanitarian assistance and humanitarian law were able to make this humanitarian carve-out. However, Canada took 18 months and has not provided a carve-out. Let us be very clear: This law is not a humanitarian carve-out. Why is this so important and pressing? Why have I brought this up in the House and written to the ministers time and time again? Why has every party in the House raised this issue?

My colleague from the Bloc just brought up recently how long he has been calling for this. The Special Committee on Afghanistan was calling for this. Why have we all been acting for this? It is because a record number of people in Afghanistan need our help.

Hunger does not wait. It is not waiting for us to have time or for it to be convenient for the rest of us. People are starving to death in Afghanistan. I have to say, Canada has spent billions of dollars, and we have lost the lives of Canadian soldiers on Afghanistan soil. We have a relationship with Afghanistan. We have an obligation to the people of Afghanistan.

They do not need our support when things are going well. The people of Afghanistan do not need us to step up when all is well. However, when six million people are at risk of severe malnourishment, tens of millions of people are food-insecure and cannot have enough food to eat, the economy has failed, there are drought conditions and climate change has made it impossible for the people of Afghanistan to feed themselves is when they need Canada to step up. That is when we need to do the work to help the people of Afghanistan.

Do not get me wrong, Madam Speaker: The Taliban is a horrendous terrorist organization by all definitions. What the members of the Taliban are doing to women and girls in that country right now is so repugnant and disgusting to me. However, we cannot stop helping people because of that. We still have to help people who are there. I would like to have every single schoolgirl be able to come to this country because if they cannot learn in their country, I would like Canada to do everything it can. I would like to say that an unlimited number of Afghans should be able to come here and study.

I know that I am very angry right now, but I will say one thing. I give speeches in my community all the time. I go and talk to students. It is a really important part of our role as parliamentarians to be in our communities.

I was talking to a grade 6 class about the importance of being a parliamentarian and my role as the foreign affairs critic. I talked about how one of the worst things for me was knowing that women and girls could not go to school in Afghanistan. Teaching women and girls fundamentally changes a country; it is the best thing we can do to deal with climate change, to teach women and girls all these reasons.

This beautiful girl in the front row put up her hand and told me that she was a refugee from Afghanistan, and she was in Canada studying and learning. It was such an incredible and beautiful thing to see.

I will come back to Bill C-41. One of the things that I think is very interesting about this is the way our humanitarian assistance has developed in this country. We have an Official Development Assistance Accountability Act in law. There is a law in our country, put in place in 2008. I was thrilled to be part of the civil society groups that were pressing for some of the legislation back then.

We have a law in place, and it says that Canada's humanitarian and development assistance would go to those most in need and that we would support those most in need. Not only is it law; it is Canadian values. My goodness, every Canadian wants to support people who are most in need and who most require our support. How can there be a better case for providing humanitarian support? How could that be possible?

Over the past eight months, close to 10,000 Canadians have joined the Aid for Afghanistan campaign, calling on the federal government to remove barriers to life-saving aid and assistance in Afghanistan. It is absolutely clear that Canadians support providing this humanitarian assistance. This is what they have been asking for.

The restrictions that Canada has in place have prevented Canadian organizations from doing that, from getting life-saving assistance to the most vulnerable and actually living up to our obligations under international law.

This is a country that has a feminist international assistance policy and is supposed to have a feminist foreign policy. From what I have been told, we have one; it is just not written down. I do not know if the government knows how policies work. This a country that is supposed to be a feminist leader and that is supposed to be leading the world, but we know that the impacts are disproportionately felt by women and girls. The impacts of the poverty in Afghanistan are being felt by women and girls. The human rights abuses that are happening in Afghanistan are disproportionately happening to women and girls.

All the rhetoric that we use with regard to humanitarian assistance impacts women and girls more, and yet this carve-out does not help us. I am going to say why it does not help us. First, and I have mentioned this already, it is a registry. It is not a humanitarian carve-out. It is not a carve-out in the same way that the UN, the U.S., Australia, the EU or the U.K had carve-outs. It is not that.

It was also developed despite the expertise in our country. The government did not liaise with, listen to or hear the sector. The sector was clear on what they needed. The experts in humanitarian aid, those who are experts at what they do, told the government what was needed and what they needed to see.

That is not what this legislation is. For the life of me I do not understand why the government would not want to listen to the experts in the field, who know what they are talking about.

Another thing that is wrong with this is that because of the way it is drafted, it puts humanitarian organizations at risk. It does that by actually interfering with their ability to be neutral and to be seen as humanitarian.

I was quite concerned when the current Minister of International Development was appointed. Humanitarian and development organizations spend all their time making sure that they are not associated with the military or defence, that they have neutrality and the ability to do their work on the ground. This bill would limit that. That is why neither the International Committee of the Red Cross nor MSF supports this bill.

We do not know what the bill would look like in other contexts. Right now, the bill has been developed because of what we are seeing in the Afghanistan situation. However, as I raised earlier, it does not talk about what happens if we are talking about other terrorist groups or listed entities. What would the bill mean in northern Nigeria? Can we not provide humanitarian aid there? What about Yemen and Burkina Faso? All these countries have similar challenges, and the legislation would apply to those groups as well. However, we have not heard from the government how it intends to deal with that.

We do not know if the bill is just for Canadian citizens working for Canadian organizations. What about a Canadian citizen working for another organization? What if there is a Canadian citizen working for the United Nations? Do they need to apply to be able to do that work? All of a sudden, the clarity is not there, and organizations that desperately want to get into Afghanistan and provide that help do not know what the bill would mean. They do not know what those expectations would be. They do not know what they would be legally allowed to do, and for an organization, that is terrifying. It is very frightening for any organization to think that it may be forced to stop doing the important work it does because it has broken regulations the government has put in place that the organization does not even understand and that have not been explained.

We do not know how the bill would work with smaller organizations or diaspora organizations. For a long time I have called on the government to increase the support for small and medium-sized organizations and for diaspora organizations. These organizations on the ground know the context and the communities. They have long relationships with these communities, but the legislation before us would make it much harder for them to be able to provide support.

Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan is a phenomenal organization in Alberta. Right now it is doing everything it can to get educational products to women and girls in Afghanistan. Despite not being able to receive funding and all the things that are happening right now, it is still trying so desperately to get education to women and girls in Afghanistan. As Canadians we should be proud of an organization like that, but the legislation would make it harder for Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan to do the work it needs to do.

Then, we look at the processing piece of the bill. We have a situation right now where Global Affairs Canada is not able to process things as quickly as it promised. This is not a slight in any way on the overburdened bureaucrats at Global Affairs Canada. It is not able to move things forward as fast as it would like because it is understaffed and overburdened; moreover, the clarity from the Liberal government has not been there.

We can think about the urgent situation we find ourselves in, and then we have a situation where urgency is required and we are asking Global Affairs Canada to add another layer of burden to those who cannot keep up with the current burden. This is not a system that will work. A carve-out would mean that all humanitarian organizations would be free to go forward. The legislation before us would mean that we have just kicked that can down the road again; once more, we are failing Afghanistan. Once more, the Canadian government has failed to live up to its obligations to Afghans.

I, for one, stand in this place. I am happy to work with anyone to make the bill better so that it meets the needs it has to meet for the people of Afghanistan. I am ready to stand in this place and work with anyone to make sure Afghans are no longer being failed by the Canadian government.

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

Madam Speaker, I have been waiting for this day for more than a year. We are finally debating a bill that should have been introduced a long time ago. Last year, I had the honour of sitting on the Special Committee on Afghanistan with my colleagues from different parties, some of whom are with me today. I was one of the vice-chairs.

It was at the meeting on February 7, 2022, already more than a year ago, that I had the honour of asking the witnesses one of my first questions. This is the first time I have done this, but I am going to quote myself, because I think it is important. This is what I said: “They said that the Criminal Code might need to be amended so that NGOs on the ground could operate in Afghanistan without fear of being accused of funding terrorism. In my opinion, this is a very important subject that we need to address. What are your thoughts on this...?”

I said that on February 7, 2022. Since then, I have asked that question every chance I get. I even introduced a unanimous consent motion in the House on February 22, 2022, to allow non-governmental organizations to do their work on the ground. That was over a year ago. The motion was defeated by the Liberals, and now we find ourselves debating this bill in March.

I put that question to the organizations themselves and to the various ministers who appeared before the committee. Surprisingly, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship all replied that they agreed with me. That was in meetings of the Special Committee on Afghanistan.

One year later, we can finally debate a topic that everyone agreed on over a year ago. Democracy is great, but sometimes it takes a while.

It will come as no surprise, then, that I was quite happy to hear that such a bill was finally being introduced and to hear the government announce that it was going to amend Canada's Criminal Code to allow humanitarian aid to flow again and to allow NGOs to do their work without fear of prosecution. I hope that is what happens.

This bill is further proof that the opposition can spur action in Quebec, Canada and around the world. After applying pressure to the government together with my friends from the Conservative Party and the NDP, I am delighted with this huge victory. The Bloc Québécois is always pleased to help. I believe that all my colleagues from the other parties are also pleased to help. That is the reason we ran for office in the first place.

Now, we must expedite the process because it has already taken too long. The Bloc Québécois can be counted on to fast-track this bill because the people of Afghanistan need help now. I say “now”, but they have needed our help since last winter when we were debating this issue. This is a useful bill that will help us make progress in the area of humanitarian aid.

The caveat is that we need to work quickly, but not too quickly. We have three hours to debate this bill, which will then be sent to committee. There are things we can discuss and on which we can agree in order to improve the bill. I will first touch on the more technical aspects. The government tabled Bill C‑41, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts, on March 9, 2023.

Currently the bill is at second reading. As it is currently written, the Criminal Code does not include any exemptions to facilitate the delivery of these essential activities in regions dealing with terrorist groups. As I mentioned earlier, this bill amends one of the Criminal Code's anti-terrorist financing offences to facilitate the delivery of much-needed international assistance, immigration activities, and other assistance in geographic areas controlled by terrorist groups. In other words, these amendments would create a new authorization scheme that would allow those that provide humanitarian or other critical assistance, to apply for an authorization that would shield them from the risk of criminal liability if the terms and conditions of the authorization are respected.

We have to understand that the Taliban, as the current de facto authority in Afghanistan, is likely to receive revenue from any payments needed to support humanitarian aid.

Under the Criminal Code, any Canadian or person in Canada making or authorizing such payments would risk contravening the Criminal Code's counter-terrorist financing provision. That is what we have now.

Despite the uncertainty, most organizations have continued to respond to crises around the world, but problems have grown exponentially since the Taliban, a listed terrorist entity, took control of Afghanistan in August 2021. In that regard, the scale of the humanitarian and economic crisis that the Afghan people are now facing cannot be overstated.

On paper, Bill C-41 rectifies this inability to make exceptions for organizations that are trying to deliver humanitarian aid on the ground. The bill is the proposed solution, and some aid groups support it.

However, what is wrong with this approach is that there are already many legal provisions that the government could strengthen rather than imposing a whole new set of legal hoops for humanitarian organizations to jump through. There is also the fact that humanitarian aid workers have said that the current amendments create more red tape for them, as my colleague said earlier.

For the sake of clarity, here is what is in this bill. Under this regime, the following people would have the power to grant an authorization to NGOs: the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, the Minister of Public Safety, and delegates with the power to grant authorizations. That is a lot of people.

These authorizations will shield applicants from criminal liability in the course of certain activities, including the delivery of humanitarian aid, when they would otherwise be at risk of violating the Criminal Code. It is really about time.

When deciding whether or not to grant an authorization, the Minister of Public Safety will examine applications referred by the Department of Foreign Affairs or the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and will take into account their assessment of the application.

In other words, the goal is to determine whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages in terms of the risk of financing terrorism. This is done through a system of information sharing between departments to conduct the security review that must be done prior to granting authorization. However, all this remains to be seen, because it does not mean that the authorization will be granted.

What happens if the authorization is not granted? Let us look at that together. Under this authorization regime, in the event of a negative response from the Government of Canada, the bill provides for the possibility of judicial review if authorization is not granted.

There is legal precedent in Canada that supports the assertion that because of the life-saving purpose of humanitarian aid, it cannot be considered criminal to provide such aid, even if a terrorist group may in some way benefit from it.

This does not mean that humanitarian organizations are shielded from anti-terrorism legislation. It means that they should not be presumed to be violating the Criminal Code simply because they operate in places like Afghanistan.

The problem is that Bill C-41 turns that presumption on its head. It uses an approach based on mistrust, one that requires humanitarian organizations to prove their abilities before they are allowed to respond to emergencies, and no one knows how long that process will take. One thing we do know, however, is that approval would involve at least two departments and up to nine security or regulatory agencies.

I cannot speak for my colleagues, but I myself have had numerous opportunities during my time in the House to see how slowly the Canadian government bureaucracy moves. Bill C‑41 provides for applications for authorization to be processed by the Government of Canada within a reasonable time. That does not necessarily instill much confidence.

Despite the positive advances in this bill, what worries me is the number of interventions required between departments and the impact that such a bill could have on humanitarian organizations. It is no secret that, when it comes to processing times, I get the impression that the federal government does not spend much time checking the clock.

The situation for the NGOs and above all the Afghan people, the men, women and children who are suffering, is deteriorating before our eyes. Time is running out.

When the time came to create this committee, a Conservative motion proposed that the Special Committee on Afghanistan be created. It was not going to be adopted because there was no consensus in the House. If the Conservative motion had been presented as worded, it would have been defeated.

The Bloc Québécois came up with a possible amendment to the proposal to create the Special Committee on Afghanistan, adding a requirement that the committee focus not only on the fall of Kabul, the federal government's failure to support the Afghan people and what happened before the Taliban took power, but also on what we could do now and in the near future.

We entered into a dialogue with our Conservative friends about this amendment and we managed to get everyone in the House to support it. Then the opposition parties voted for the motion to create the Special Committee on Afghanistan. It is important to highlight this, because the committee's mission is to find out what is being done now and how we are helping people who are experiencing suffering that we in the House will never experience. Things are horrible there. Women and parents are being forced to sell one of their daughters in order to feed their other children. These are the kinds of horrors we heard about in meetings of the Special Committee on Afghanistan. That is why we wanted to create it, to come up with recommendations and to help the Afghan people as quickly as possible.

We have known about this problem for over a year, but today the government comes along and tells me that it was complicated to draft. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Public Safety, the Minister of Immigration, everyone in the Liberal Party agreed that there is a problem and that we need to do something about it, but they said it takes time. The Minister of International Development also got involved, saying that we need to do it, but that it will take time, so we need to give them time. We are being told it is normal for this to take so much time.

There is a question I ask myself when I get up in the morning. As I often mention, I have a Post-it note on my bedside table that says, “Who do you work for?” When I open my eyes, that is the first thing I see. I work for Quebeckers and the people of Lac-Saint-Jean, but I also work for everyone who needs help around the world. It is part of my files, but I am also fundamentally human and I am a representative of the people. We have a duty and a responsibility toward people who are suffering.

Now the government is telling me that it was too complicated and that it is understandable that it took so much time. I will give an example. When the pandemic hit the entire country, I think the government acted fairly quickly to implement special aid programs. It only took the government two weeks to create the Canada emergency response benefit and subsidies for businesses when people were losing their jobs. Now, however, the government says it is understandable for this to take a year and a half, even though children are dying in Afghanistan, women are selling their children and Canada is unable to deliver humanitarian aid because of the Criminal Code. Come on.

I am rather appalled by that. I understand that I have plenty of Liberal colleagues who are acting in good faith, who want to help and who agree with us on this subject, but I think there is a problem somewhere in the machine. It is not right for the government to be able to create aid programs really quickly when people are losing their jobs in Canada but not when children are dying in Afghanistan. I think that is unfathomable and disgraceful.

I am going to end with that because I do not want to get too wound up, and this is still good news, after all. However, now that we have wasted so much time, we need to get Bill C‑41 in place. How likely is that that the bill is well written and we can all agree on the amendments coming from the humanitarian NGO community, all together and not in committee?

What I am asking is that the parties come to agreement through informal conversations before sitting in committee and that everyone agrees quickly. I am hoping that there will be no debate in committee and that the amendments that are agreed upon are voted on quickly. Let us not waste any more time; we have wasted far too much over the last year.

I will say it again. The first question I asked with respect to this issue was on February 7, 2022, in the Special Committee on Afghanistan. The motion received unanimous consent, so I tabled it on February 22, 2022. What day is it now? It is March and April is coming. There was snow in the Parc des Laurentides, but it is sunny here. It is spring. It should not have taken this long.

Let us make sure that from now on it moves as quickly as it can and that this bill is as well crafted as possible to allow our NGOs to do the work on the ground, to help women, men, children and the Afghan people through one of the worst humanitarian crises on the planet.

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

Madam Speaker, again, we see the eagerness of Liberal and NDP politicians to shift the conversation to abortion.

I would just assure them again that there is a study happening at the foreign affairs committee. Four meetings have taken place. Neither of the members who have tried to divert this conversation from aid into Afghanistan to that issue have been at the foreign affairs committee. I participated actively in that study. My comments are on the record.

I would rather focus our discussion today on Bill C-41, which is the bill that is before the House. On this point, I agree with the member. This raises some questions about small organizations and whether small or medium-sized diaspora-led organizations would have an easy time accessing these exemptions. That is why I have raised this idea. What if we say that if one organization receives an exemption to operate under particular conditions in a particular place, then another organization that is doing more or less the same thing would be able to benefit from the same exemption?

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

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. If the government was as quick to introduce this bill as my colleague was in reading his speech, Bill C‑41 would have been passed a long time ago. I want to congratulate him because I have never heard someone say so many words so quickly.

There are a lot of things in this bill. Members know that I care a lot about this bill. With the support of my colleagues, I was one of the first to ask questions about this. We have been waiting over a year for this bill, and it is here.

We have a lot of questions about Bill C‑41. One quickly comes to mind. Authorization must be sought from a number of departments and agencies. That is not clear. What Bill C‑41 is saying is that the Government of Canada must give answers to these requests in a timely manner.

Does my colleague believe that this will be done in a timely manner—

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

Madam Speaker, I will. It is my right to speak in the House. I appreciate that.

Transforming Afghanistan was a great and noble goal, but doing worthwhile things is never easy. Supporting the democratic development of Afghanistan was always going to be a long process, and if it was going to work, then it would require a long-term commitment.

Tony Blair is right, in an ultimate sense. The people always ultimately choose freedom over tyranny, but the short-term optimism of the post-9/11 era did not pay enough attention to the need to gradually and painstakingly develop the institutions and political culture of a free pluralistic society over time. We were too quick to want to declare mission accomplished. We cannot expect to simply chase out the bad guys and then roll out the template of free democratic institutions because there is no single template for such institutions.

The core problem was that so-called neo-conservatism was not, in practice, sufficiently conservative. Conservatism, in its essential form, emphasizes the importance of local culture, tradition and familial attachments. To succeed, the institutions and culture of free democracy must be built on that pre-existing local foundation.

There is no single template for democracy because democracy succeeds when it builds on pre-existing cultural structures that have existing legitimacy, which then confer that legitimacy on the emergent democratic structures. This is how democracy was successfully built in the west, especially in the Anglo-American tradition over a long period. If those advancing democracy elsewhere do not build on the existing cultural foundation, then there will inevitably be rival centres of power that compete for legitimacy with the new democrat institutions.

In practice, neo-conservatism was not sufficiently conservative because it did not sufficiently take stock of how deeply embedded traditions and authority structures need to be collaborated with and harnessed in order to build free institutions that are authentic to the local setting over time. Any work of external nation building requires both great patience and even greater humility.

Free societies are not built like buildings. Rather, they grow like trees. Our own long history of halting democratic development in the west building on pre-democratic foundations should have made it clear to us that democratic development was always going to be a long-term project if it was going to be completed.

In one sense, the work of securing democracy is never complete. As the saying goes, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Save for the possibilities of divine intervention or nuclear annihilation, there is no such thing as the end of history. That is as true in Afghanistan as it is anywhere else. The work of building Canadian democracy is not complete, so why should we have expected it to ever be complete in Afghanistan? Of course, the hope of many, and rightly so, was that at some point along the way, external troops would be able to fully withdraw and Afghans themselves would be the ones vigilantly guarding and defending their own freedom, no longer needing outside help.

The critics of continuing western involvements in Afghanistan believed we needed to end so-called forever wars at a certain point and to leave the country to its own work in this regard. This framing of forever wars was highly misleading.

American troops have been stationed in Korea for much, much longer than they have been in Afghanistan. Nobody considers that American presence in Korea a forever war. America's presence in Korea is rather a matter of a contingent of troops helping to guarantee the peace. The withdrawal of Americans from South Korea would create a significant heightened risk of catastrophic conflict, so it is good for America to keep a contingent of troops there as long as is necessary.

The nature of America's presence in Afghanistan was different of course than the nature of its presence in Korea, but the western presence in Afghanistan was still consistent with the gradual drawing down of engagement, more limited air support backing the Afghan army, extremely low casualty figures in the later years compared to the height of the conflict and a trajectory whereby a smaller and less costly presence could, over time, still help sustain local democracy and security.

The fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban was not the inevitable result of facts on the ground. It was the result of a political choice that reflected a change in the western mood, the shift from too optimistic, impatient interventionism without sufficient cultural understand to too pessimistic isolationist abandonment.

As we have seen, the politics of isolationism and withdrawal, of putting domestic issues over external security imperatives, has led to global democratic decline, greater insecurity and ultimately a higher risk of costly war. This is why, in an age of further threats to free democracies, we must be vigilant and active, embracing realistic optimism and strategic patience and making the investments and the sacrifices that are required to keep the world a safe place for freedom and democracy.

The quote I read earlier continues with the poignant line, “The spread of freedom is the best security for the free.”

I hear from time to time from constituents who want us to ignore events far away and instead to simply focus on challenges at home, but history teaches us that impulse to retrench from the world always leads to the decline of democracy and liberty and to threats from abroad washing up on our own shores. When this spirit prevails, the long-term costs to our own well-being and happiness are inevitably much higher than if we had been engaged with international events from the beginning. I hope we learn the lessons of that history and we apply it.

As it relates to Afghanistan, we must now turn our attention to that other legacy of 9/11, which is the impact of anti-terrorism legislation. Anti-terrorism legislation was designed to confront the threat posed by violent non-state actors. Certain states do engage in acts that would fit any coherent legal definition of terrorism, but we have generally found it useful to maintain the possibility of some intercourse with hostile or rights-abusing governments, even those that use terrorism. The extreme isolation associated with a terrorist listing was therefore designed for violent non-state actors as opposed to violent state actors. This design, though, has been stretched and complicated in certain respects in recent years.

First, certain organizations, such as the IRGC or the Wagner Group, may simultaneously function as an international terrorist organization and as part of, or a close affiliate of, a state. In our view, these organizations should still be listed as terrorist entities, but we should acknowledge that such designations move us closer in the direction of capturing state-affiliated entities, instead of just non-state actors, with anti-terrorism legislation. Designating the particular organs of terrorism, rather than the state itself, still provides space for some interaction with other state organs, and is therefore, in my view, quite doable, even without amending the Criminal Code as it exists.

More complicated is the case in which a terrorist organization comes to occupy and function as the de facto authority in the state, and this is now the case in Afghanistan. Removing such an organization from the terrorist list would clearly send the wrong message and weaken legitimate and important sanctions against that group. Withdrawing the designation from a terrorist group once it takes over government would appear to suggest that one way for a terrorist group to get off the terrorist list is to simply take over territory. Again, that would clearly send the wrong message.

However, the Criminal Code, as it currently exists, was not designed for the situation in which a terrorist group also functions as the de facto authority in a state, so it is reasonable to look for ways to make these provisions nimbler, if that nimbleness allows us to preserve the listing of terrorist groups as terrorist groups. Rather than removing the terrorist designation from a terrorist organization that is still a terrorist organization, we should be prepared to thoughtfully amend the Criminal Code to still allow some presence in, and engagement with the people of, a country when that country has been overrun by a terrorist organization without in any way legitimizing that organization.

This brings us to the particular provisions of Bill C-41. Bill C-41 would allow the Government of Canada to grant very limited exemptions to the Anti-Terrorism Act to allow the delivery of humanitarian assistance in areas controlled by terrorist organizations. The legislation does not name Afghanistan or the Taliban directly, but it is clearly designed to allow the government to grant narrow exemptions that would allow the delivery of emergency humanitarian relief into Afghanistan.

Afghanistan faces an ongoing humanitarian crisis, in large part as a result of Taliban misrule. Terrorists are generally not very good at running an economy, yet Canadian charities have not been able to deliver essential humanitarian aid because in the process of delivering that aid to the Afghan people, they may run afoul of the Anti-Terrorism Act and thus risk criminal prosecution.

In this particular case, we are not talking about the expenditure of public funds. We are talking simply about increasing the precision of Criminal Code provisions to give private Canadian charities the freedom to deliver private funds to the suffering people of Afghanistan. Bill C-41 does not prescribe the precise form of the exemptions the government will grant. It would simply give the government the power to grant these exemptions. It is reasonable for a government to have this power to deal with contingency situations, although the government will necessarily be held accountable for its judicious and effective use of this power.

On the basic objective of Bill C-41, the biggest problem I have is that it comes too late, not too late to be useful, but too late for many who have already been suffering under Taliban misrule for over a year and a half. Peer countries have been way ahead of us in addressing this problem, and Parliament has been pushing the government to address this issue for almost all of that time. In fact, immediately after the 2021 election, Conservatives proposed a motion to create a special committee on Afghanistan. When it reported to the House last spring, that committee recommended that changes be made to allow humanitarian assistance to get into Afghanistan. Following that, this past fall, the foreign affairs committee unanimously agreed to my motion calling for changes that would allow humanitarian assistance to get into Afghanistan, reiterating what was in the Afghan committee's report, and the committee adopted a second motion on the matter, proposed by the NDP earlier in the winter session, yet it has still taken until the end of March to actually begin debate on this bill.

When I met with international development stakeholders on the bill, they emphasized a significant concern about timelines, and in a few different senses. They highlighted the issue of timelines for the passage of the legislation in the hope the government will choose to prioritize it within its legislative agenda so the legislation can, indeed, move forward. The bill does need to be studied and debated thoroughly, but we are prepared to move it forward as quickly as possible, provided that sufficient time is set aside for study and debate.

While the principles are important, the bill is technically and legally complicated and does require meaningful examination, but stakeholders are not only concerned about the timeline for the passage of this bill. They are concerned about the timelines the bill would create for them in being able to get to work on the ground. Until this legislation passes, international organizations are potentially prohibited criminally from running humanitarian or development programs in Afghanistan if there is some risk of any portion of those resources eventually ending up in the hands of the Taliban.

This legislation would allow the Minister of Public Safety to grant certain narrow exemptions. From the perspective of these organizations, the legislation marks an improvement. However, the process associated with accessing these exemptions would be time-intensive and potentially highly bureaucratic, with no timeline set out. Again, it is not only about how long it takes to pass the bill, but also how long it would take organizations to be authorized to get to work.

The proposed process is that an exemption would be granted after a thorough review by the public safety minister, but only after the issue has been referred to that minister by another minister, either the immigration or foreign affairs minister, who would presumably have to conduct their own analysis. Exemptions would also have to be granted for each individual organization. If one development organization applies for and receives an exemption to operate a particular program, then another organization, running essentially an equivalent program in the same or different geographic area, would also have to apply for their own separate exemption.

There is also a great deal of uncertainty about how widely an exemption would apply. Would an organization that got an exemption to run a program in one province in one year have to apply for another exemption to extend the program, run the same program in a different province or run the program in another year? From my reading, there is a certain lack of clarity around the breadth of the exemptions that would be introduced.

Multiple organizations doing essentially the same work would each have to apply separately instead of simply being able to proceed with their work based on an exemption granted to someone else. This process seems more bureaucratic and costly than it needs to be, and it raises questions about whether the actual exemptions would be in place in a reasonable amount of time.

It also raises concerns about equity. Would the government subject certain organizations to more scrutiny than others, and would small and diaspora-led organizations be able to access these exemptions alongside larger organizations that have a longer history of working directly with the federal government?

Conservatives have repeatedly highlighted the need to ensure the inclusion of small and diaspora-led organizations in our thinking about international development. It is perhaps natural and inevitable that certain trusted partners are more likely to receive direct government funding, but it would be a grave problem if small and less-known organizations continued to face criminal prohibitions on delivering aid while larger, better-known players were given exemptions in identical situations.

It would seem reasonable for the government to establish certain general categories or situations of exemption, which would apply to all organizations, rather than only grant exemptions on an individual case-by-case basis. We will be digging more into this specific part of the issue at committee. Although we feel there is an urgency around the timeline of passing this legislation, there is also an urgency to ensure that processes are streamlined so that we can get assistance to the people who need it as soon as possible.

When I have been consulting with Canadians about this legislation, some have asked if aid should be flowing into Taliban-controlled Afghanistan at all. We know that the real cause of the suffering of the Afghan people is their Taliban oppressors. Poverty is, in this and so many other cases, the result of unjust and broken political institutions preventing people from moving forward in freedom and security. Why treat the symptom when the cause of the problem remains in place?

To that, I would say that what is true in Afghanistan is true in many places, to a lesser extent, and that is that poverty often has its roots in injustice. When people cannot borrow against their assets because they lack clear title, when a primary breadwinner faces arbitrary arrests and does not have secure access to an objective justice system, when transportation routes of goods are not secure, when corruption limits opportunities, when teenagers cannot go to school for fear of violence there or on the way, these are all too common instances in many parts of the developing world where violence causes or perpetuates poverty.

People everywhere have the ingenuity and the potential to lift themselves out of poverty if they are not held back by unjust systems that deprive them of the security, title and credit that they need to get ahead. The fight for justice and for the recognition of universal human dignity is central to development and poverty alleviation. We need to recognize this reality, but we also still need to attack poverty directly, especially in emergency situations like this.

It is not always possible to go directly to the roots of a problem. In the case of Afghanistan, by choosing to abandon Afghanistan's security and the building of just institutions, we have cut ourselves off from the ability to get at the roots of the problem, but with those bad decisions already baked in, we should still do all that we can to save lives and elevate the conditions of the Afghan people.

We should support such measures, even while recognizing that the Taliban cannot be permitted to continue to inflict its reign of terror on the Afghan people. The political problem will require an eventual solution. Delivering humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan is a necessary form of harm reduction, but we should not lose sight of the underlying injustices, political problems and of the need to look for solutions to them.

Based on this, what can we say about the future of Afghanistan? Nobody can say what surprises will rest around the corner, but the Afghan people deserve our continuing support and goodwill. Continuing contacts between Canadian organizations and Afghans in Afghanistan help all concerned to be informed and create opportunities to respond to emerging issues and dynamics.

We need to start by removing legal barriers that prevent humanitarian aid from getting in. Continuing access to food, education and other essentials will provide Afghans some space to move forward. The involvement of Canadian organizations in this effort will mean contact and two-way awareness that could turn into something else down the road.

We should retain some of the old optimism, because the intervening decades between 2001 and 2021 were not all for nothing. A new generation of Afghans has seen a different set of possibilities, and we will work together to ensure the re-emergence of those possibilities. We must still look for a way to be there for them.

At the end of the day, we know the choice that Afghans will make when they are able, because even if not with the right timelines and the right tactics, the main point was correct: “Ours are not Western values, they are the universal values of the human spirit. And anywhere, any time ordinary people are given the chance to choose, the choice is [always] the same: freedom, not tyranny; democracy, not dictatorship; the rule of law, not the rule of the secret police. The spread of freedom is the best security for the free.”

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

Madam Speaker, it is truly an honour to begin debate today on Bill C-41. This legislation aims to address important aspects of the deepening crisis in Afghanistan and responds to Canadian humanitarian aid agencies and their pleas to be able to deliver relief to a country on the brink. This work stems from the cross-party collaborative efforts from the Special Committee on Afghanistan and the important recommendations put forward by members of that committee.

I am proud to have been a member of this committee, but this work is also thanks to the non-governmental organizations and humanitarian aid agencies that advocated and testified at committee for a pathway forward to deliver aid to Afghanistan. The testimony we heard was haunting. The Afghan people have persisted through four decades of war, and since the forceful capture of the country by the Taliban, the world has witnessed the erosion of fundamental rights and the steady deterioration of social and economic systems. This has created the largest humanitarian crisis in the world.

Drawing on testimony from the committee, I want to remind the House that Afghanistan was a country that was reliant on foreign aid before the takeover by the Taliban. The committee’s report states the following:

The World Bank had assessed that Afghanistan’s economy was “shaped by fragility and aid dependence.” Grants were financing some 75% of total public expenditure and were responsible for around 45% of Afghanistan’s gross domestic product in 2020. With the abrupt return to power of the Taliban, Afghanistan—whose currency reserves held abroad were frozen—experienced a significant fiscal contraction at the same time as it essentially became cut-off from the international banking and payments systems. That occurred because the Taliban have long been subject to sanctions in relation to terrorism.

The overall result for the country has been “near economic and institutional collapse, including an inability to provide most basic services and pay civil servant salaries.” The net effect for the Afghan people is that prices have increased, livelihoods have disappeared, and household resources have been exhausted...

To encapsulate the enormity of this situation, John Aylieff, Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific at the WFP, said: “Today, millions of people in Afghanistan—young children, families and communities—stand at the precipice of inhumane hunger and destitution.” Of the 23 million people who required food assistance, nearly 9 million were “one step away from famine,” while some 1 million children were “at risk of perishing this year from acute malnutrition.”

The population of Afghanistan is 40 million people, and 23 million people require food assistance.

What I have described is but a small sample of the testimony we heard. It was clear that Canadian aid agencies were ready and willing to help, but they were unable to do so. According to Michael Messenger, CEO of World Vision Canada, that organization had “two containers full of packets of ready-to-use therapeutic food…to treat children facing the severest forms of malnutrition…[that] can literally bring children back from the brink of death by starvation.” The committee report goes on to say, “The organization could not ship them to Afghanistan, despite the pleas from their team on the ground. Each container can help more than 900 children.”

I am proud of the report from the Special Committee on Afghanistan and am pleased this legislation is in line with recommendations 10 and 11, which called upon the government to ensure that registered Canadian organizations have the clarity and assurances needed to deliver humanitarian assistance to meet the basic needs of the people of Afghanistan without fear of prosecution for violating Canada’s anti-terrorism laws.

Canada has a long and rich history of fighting for human rights and delivering life-saving assistance abroad. Over the last 20 years, many Afghans experienced improved access to health services and education and were able to participate in efforts to build their democracy. This occurred in no small part thanks to the efforts of Canadian organizations providing aid in support of a generation of leaders, many of whom were women, who were building a better country for all Afghans.

The purpose of this bill is to address the fact that Canada’s current legal framework has limited the ability of Canadian aid organizations to provide assistance to the people of Afghanistan due to potential Criminal Code liability. Although the Taliban has taken over as the de facto national authority of Afghanistan, it remains a listed terrorist group under Canada’s Criminal Code.

The Taliban maintains close links with several terrorist groups, and the combination of a weak state and a collapsing economy gives terrorist groups a fertile ground within which to operate, but we must put in place needed reform to address the needs of the Afghan people and to facilitate the assistance they so desperately need. We will find a balanced course of action that will also seek to preserve the integrity of Canada’s counter-terrorism financing measures.

The proposed bill maintains strong counter-terrorist financing measures while presenting an authorization regime to provide protection from criminal liability for the delivery of humanitarian aid and other activities by Canadian organizations. Terrorist financing remains a criminal offence. Authorizations would only shield applicants from criminal liability for providing an unavoidable benefit to a terrorist group associated with activities that serve a specified purpose, subject to strict terms and conditions. An authorization would not shield efforts to deliberately leverage the authorization to provide a benefit to a terrorist group beyond what is incidental and covered by the authorization terms and conditions. Such activities would remain criminal.

We recognize that terrorism is a global threat that requires a concerted international response. Canada’s terrorist financing regime is contained in the Criminal Code and, because of this, aid agencies were restricted in delivering aid as it could be interpreted as providing indirect financial support to the Taliban, which is a criminal offence. This authorization tool would facilitate the delivery of certain activities, like humanitarian assistance, human rights programming and immigration services, in geographic areas controlled by terrorist groups. This means that Canadians holding an authorization and providing these services would no longer be at risk of committing a terrorist financing offence, and foreign citizens, like the people of Afghanistan, would be able to receive the assistance they need in their country or by resettling to Canada.

I have already heard anecdotally that some aid organizations are ramping up their operations in anticipation of the passage of this legislation so they can scale up their work in supporting the people of Afghanistan.

Further, the proposed authorization regime is not restricted to Afghanistan, in order to enable the Government of Canada to respond to similar situations elsewhere in the world, now and in the future.

Under this regime, the Minister of Public Safety would consider applications that have been referred by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and/or the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, who would first need to be satisfied that certain conditions were met. This includes, among other things, that the proposed activity aligns with a permitted purpose and responds to a real and important need.

Once the application has been referred, the Minister of Public Safety would conduct a security review that must assess the impact of granting the authorization on terrorist financing. Factors to be considered include, among others, whether the applicants or those involved in activity implementation have links to terrorist groups or were investigated, charged or convicted of terrorism offences. Those assessments would be led by Public Safety and undertaken by the national security agencies, such as CSIS, the RCMP and CSE, where required.

The issuance of an authorization would ultimately take into account an assessment of benefit, need and capability of the applicant against the assessment of risk of terrorist financing. Any eligible person or organization in Canada, or Canadian organization outside of Canada, could apply for an authorization. This could include Government of Canada officials, as well as persons associated with or acting on behalf of a registered or incorporated Canadian organization. The updated Criminal Code provisions would also set out permissible classes of activities that would achieve certain purposes.

In the current situation in Afghanistan, the delivery of aid and other forms of international assistance inevitably benefits the Taliban through taxation and other fees. This regime would allow Canadian organizations, including Government of Canada departments, to work within the defined scope of an authorization to achieve their goals without risk of running afoul of the law.

Simply put, the changes contemplated in Bill C-41 would allow our aid agencies to go back to what they do best: saving lives.

I know this is an issue that has touched the hearts of all who served on the Special Committee on Afghanistan. We were able to set aside partisan differences and work together to present our report. The bill responds to that report. I was heartened to see this place provide unanimous consent to a motion last week that will ensure that the bill is fast-tracked through the parliamentary process.

I began my speech by outlining the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, but it is not only food insecurity that threatens the lives of millions of Afghans. Health care is in crisis. Women and girls are facing human rights violations that are unthinkable. Afghanistan has one of the highest rates of those living with a disability in the world, after decades of war and land mines. Families have sold their daughters just to survive.

To be honest, the conditions in Afghanistan are beyond comprehension for all of us sitting here in Canada. Sadly, they are a reality for millions of Afghans living under the Taliban regime. Groups like Islamic Relief, World Vision, Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan, Red Cross, CARE Canada and so many others are ready to provide aid to some of the world’s most vulnerable, but they need us to act.

In 2019, The Asia Foundation released a model disability survey of Afghanistan, which found that nearly 80% of adults in Afghanistan have a disability. As a result, many of the households in Afghanistan have become women-led. With the current regime in place, women have been forced out of the economy and out of schools, leaving many households in abject poverty. Those living with disabilities also face heightened violence and insecurity within conflict. Because of this, so many who have a disability in Afghanistan face more difficulties attempting to flee conflict, resulting in a higher reliance on humanitarian aid.

Bill C-41 would be able to reach this population, which has not had the same opportunity to seek refuge in other countries, and would allow for humanitarian aid to flow to Afghanistan to address the specific needs those with disabilities face.

The human rights abuses against women and girls, and the Hazaras, are particularly egregious. Women and girls have been denied their most basic rights, including their right to education and employment, at every turn. Finding different means to control women, the Taliban has imposed strict dress codes, forcing them to wear a burka, a full body covering that obscures their face and body. Women’s freedom of movement has also been severely restricted, with women being allowed to leave their homes only in the company of a male relative. Of course, those who do not comply are met with harassment, abuse and state-sanctioned violence.

The restrictions imposed on women’s education are devastating.

In March 2018, on the floor of the Library of Parliament, in the old Centre Block, at the heart of our democracy, I, along with the Minister of Science, the Minister for Women and Gender Equality, and the Prime Minister, met with the Afghan Dreamers. They were an all-women high school robotics team who, in partnership with FIRST Robotics Canada, had flown from Afghanistan to Canada to compete against high-school teams across the province. They brought their robot from Kabul to Canada.

It is hard to remember these young women and think about their lives today under the Taliban. They showed me what the future of Afghanistan was going to look like, and I remain in hope that this future comes to fruition. When I was speaking with these young women, they told me that when they left Canada to go back home they wanted to open a school dedicated to teaching other women and girls about science, technology, engineering and math. These young women were and continue to be Afghanistan's greatest resource.

Since returning to power, the Taliban has targeted schools like the one envisioned by The Afghan Dreamers, often destroying school buildings and threatening those who teach and attend them. At times, women have been prohibited from attending schools and universities. Women who are pursuing higher education have been forced to abandon their studies. Women are being used as a tool to advance the Taliban's power in the region.

Speaking at the UN Commission on the Status of Women on March 24, Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan advocacy manager Sarah Keeler said:

But while girls the world over are out of education, the situation for girls and women in Afghanistan is unparalleled in its intensity and impact. Under repressive Taliban rule, Afghanistan is now the only country on the planet with the terrible distinction of denying women and girls their right to learn as a policy. Indeed, the Taliban's restrictions amount to system-wide gender persecution, in education and elsewhere.

For girls like Maryam, there are not just the barriers of poverty or lack of infrastructure, already overwhelming enough—there is also ideological malice that has intentionally robbed girls of their rights and hope for the future. “What crime have I committed?”, asks Maryam. She writes to us of feeling hopeless, suicidal and alone. All Afghan women and girls, but perhaps most of all the generation for whom two decades of democratic progress and investment in education provided the catalyst for real achievement and aspiration, are experiencing a profound mental health crisis.

The Hazara minority is no different. Through witnesses who appeared before committee, we heard about the devastation and persecution faced by the Hazara community. Hazaras are a predominantly Shia Muslim ethnic group that has faced systemic discrimination from the Taliban. From being subjected to attacks to forced displacement and other human rights abuses, the Hazara minority remains a vulnerable group in Afghanistan that is in dire need of the support this bill would allow.

Previously, Canada introduced special measures to support Afghans through Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. We have welcomed over 29,000 Afghan refugees since August 2021. These special measures allow the expedited processing of applications from Afghan nationals seeking to immigrate to Canada. A dedicated channel was introduced for applications coming in from a number of measures Canada presented. The special immigration measures program aims to resettle 18,000 people. IRCC also introduced a temporary public policy that creates a pathway to permanent residence for extended family members of former Afghan interpreters who immigrated to Canada under the 2009 and 2012 public policies. More recently, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada introduced a temporary policy for extended family members of former language and cultural advisers. The work that our government has done has been important and life-changing.

While thousands of Afghan nationals have been able to seek refuge in Canada, there are millions more who need our support, and this bill would allow exactly that. We as parliamentarians have an obligation to all Afghans to pass this legislation quickly and judiciously. Aid to Afghanistan remains absolutely vital. With this legislative change, Canada is responding to the growing crisis in Afghanistan. This would also help our government work with like-minded countries and international partners to advance our priorities. Canada has a hard-earned international reputation as both a fierce protector and a steadfast source of humanitarian assistance.

I want to give a special thanks to those who worked on this issue. It is rare in this place that we work together with civil society to make such monumental change, but with this legislation, we will truly save the lives of some of the most vulnerable in the world.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

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

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.

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

Thank you.

Is there anyone else? No.

I'm going back to Ms. Loten.

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

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for that detailed answer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your question.

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks to you and your colleague for this important question.

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

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

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

[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—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My next questions are a bit off topic, and there are no wrong answers. I myself don't have any thoughts on this; I really need the insights of our witnesses.

For a year now, we've been pressing the executive branch of government to amend the Criminal Code to allow our humanitarian organizations to do their work in Afghanistan.

Yesterday, the government introduced Bill C‑41. We know that the devil is in the details.

Have you had time to look at Bill C‑41?

If you have, do you have any first impressions of the bill to share with us?

I don't know who the best person to answer my question would be.

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.

Criminal Code

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-41, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)