Evidence of meeting #57 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was afghanistan.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
You may respond in the language of your choice, I speak both French and English.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
I will do the same as you and start in French.
First, thank you for the question.
With respect to the first part of your comments, you're right. It's not true that we haven't done anything for Afghanistan. We've worked a great deal with Afghanistan. We've already welcomed 30,000 of the 40,000 refugees we promised to take in. We've worked a lot with our allies and agencies on the ground to help people immigrate here or to provide assistance in other ways.
In a system where I can't dictate prosecutorial decisions and I can't dictate investigations, when to investigate or not, the only secure way to create an exemption for humanitarian aid on the ground, to the extent that it might touch on anti-terrorist financing, is to do what we've done here.
There were a number of people advancing interpretations who said, “You don't even need to do this; it can be done.” That would rely on the discretion of individuals the government has no control over. At the end of the day, if it happens that someone decides to investigate, one prosecutor decides to go ahead, then they get angry with the government and ask, “Why did you let this happen?” It's independent.
This is the way, in the Canadian structure of investigations, that we could do it. We have done it. I'm proud of the bill, and I think it will have a major impact on the ground.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
Thank you very much for that response.
I represent the Orleans community, which has strong historical ties to Afghanistan, not only in the community but also in members of the military, people who have mobilized to help the Afghan people throughout those 20 years.
I wanted to ask...and you sort of alluded to this. It's interesting how this conversation is happening here, because we're saying, “tough on crime” and “not tough on crime”.
A deep desire and sensitivity led us to this course of action, but we had to do it within certain parameters.
Could changing the Canadian law here undermine our ability to combat terrorism? I think that's very important and relevant in the context of the global situation.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
No, I don't think it does, because the anti-terrorism laws—anti-terrorist financing laws, more particularly—remain in place. They remain the baseline, and it is only through the exceptional regime—the application to the minister and the ministerial exemption—that there's an exemption.
That's critically important. You could easily see a situation—sadly, I have to say—where a group.... If we had gone with a larger basic exemption for all humanitarian work, where somebody under the guise of humanitarian work tries to circumvent the law and the anti-terrorism financing laws.... That's a very real possibility. We didn't choose that route, and I'm glad that we didn't.
I think we will get the same positive impact for all of the same groups that are legitimately working on the ground in Afghanistan this way, without weakening the anti-terrorist financing laws—
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
I'm sorry for interrupting, Minister. The time is up for Mrs. Lalonde.
We will proceed to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe for two and a half minutes.
Please begin.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
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?
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
There's nothing funny about it. It's a very serious question.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
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.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
It's a pleasure. I've been working on this from the start with my colleagues in opposition, so it would be a little crazy not to support this bill.
However, you have yet to answer my question. If the solution has been there all along, I'd just like to understand why it took you 18 months to suggest it.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
As I said, I'm not going to reveal the content of discussions we held within cabinet.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
So it's because of your discussions that it's taken so long. That's what you're telling us.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
No. You're putting words in my mouth and that is not right.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
If you won't say anything, then I'm going to put words in your mouth.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
…due to parliamentary principles that must be respected.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
I'm sorry for interrupting. The time is up.
We will now proceed to Ms. Kwan for two and a half minutes.
Please begin.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you.
I want to point out one glaring piece. I know Canada provided humanitarian aid through international organizations. What we're talking about is the barrier for Canadian organizations, and that's why this is needed.
Please don't conflate the two aspects, because I think it does a disservice to the Canadian organizations that are trying their very best to do this important humanitarian work. I wanted to point that out.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Precisely, but I think to suggest that “Oh, but we're already doing this, so why is there this anxiety?” it—
5:15 p.m.
Liberal