Justice Committee on April 19th, 2023

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

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It seems as if one of the concerns about general humanitarian exemption is this possibility: You have a terrorist organization controlling an area that says, “You can bring in humanitarian assistance, but you have to pay 70% tax.” You're getting some money to people who are suffering, but most of the money is going to the authority. We probably wouldn't want humanitarian assistance to go in, in that case, because the price is simply too high in terms of who receives it. On the other hand, there are other circumstances in which we think that would be reasonable.

I'd like to hear from those who are in favour of a general humanitarian exemption. What do you think should happen in the hypothetical case I described?

[Joseph Belliveau]

What would happen in a hypothetical case of an exorbitantly high demand for taxation? Is that your question?

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

Yes.

[Joseph Belliveau]

MSF and other humanitarian organizations.... We've been doing this for 52 years now, in all sorts of contexts where armed actors are present and operating. It is part of our job, and it is consistent with providing aid to people who need it most. We're constantly negotiating with these armed groups in a way that minimizes....

The figures you're talking about are not figures we would ever agree to. We're constantly negotiating for the least amount of any sort of benefit whatsoever accruing to an armed group. By far, the majority of what we provide goes to the people we're there to assist.

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

To follow up on that, you're a trusted, credible organization. Saying, “Hey, we know what we're doing here” is reasonable in your case, but a broad humanitarian exemption wouldn't apply to just organizations like yours. It would apply to organizations that perhaps have good intentions but don't have the same track record.

If we want to say yes to you in that case, but we want to be cautious about others that may not have the same experience, how do we do that?

[Joseph Belliveau]

Again, this comes back to what Claude was saying, and I'm sure she can build on this. She's clearly saying that an organization operating according to the humanitarian principles and providing aid impartially has the protection of IHL and already has, then, the right to intervene and provide that service.

You're talking about the practical negotiations after that, but we have the right.

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

Yes.

I'm sorry. I want to honour my colleague's generosity with his time and give him a little.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

It's a little, because you have one minute.

[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?

[Joseph Belliveau]

Because we are so firmly committed to the humanitarian principles and because we are so firmly under the protection of IHL and we know this and we have the experience of it, we did not alter our operations in Afghanistan, nor have we altered them anywhere else.

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

Have you been operating in Afghanistan even though it's governed by the Taliban?

[Joseph Belliveau]

Yes, again, we have been operating before the Taliban takeover and after the Taliban takeover under the protection of international humanitarian law.

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

Isn't that doing indirectly what we can't do directly under the current section 83 of the Criminal Code? How do you work around that through IHL?

[Joseph Belliveau]

I think Claude can jump in here, but there are a a lot of other organizations active in Afghanistan, because other states have already made exemptions similar to the one we're talking about here. The United Nations Security Council has not only called for counterterror measures to be in line with IHL but has also made resolutions that provide these kinds of exemptions, including in Afghanistan.

It is possible to do this, and a lot of other organizations and states behind those organizations are moving in that direction.

Maybe Claude wants to build on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you. Unfortunately, we're out of time.

The last question will go to Ms. Diab for four minutes.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to our witnesses. Thank you to you and your teams for providing this necessary humanitarian work across the globe. I can only imagine what your organization and the people who are employed there or volunteer there go through to get to that.

This is the second day of our hearings on this bill. We heard that the bill is crucial to provide humanitarian aid in Afghanistan. Of course, as you've said, it's not simply Afghanistan; it could be anywhere, many other places around the globe.

We also heard from government officials and others that there is a balance that needs to be struck here. In law and in reality and life, it's always very difficult to strike balances. It's always something that you attempt to do, I suppose.

Ms. West, you have extensive experience in Afghanistan in what you've done personally. Can you talk to us a little more about the security considerations? How would you factor those in with respect to the provision of foreign aid?

[Dr. Leah West]

IHL, which governs humanitarian assistance and the work of humanitarian organizations, has already factored in a lot of that balance. There are a series of requirements placed on these organizations in order to lawfully provide aid inside an armed conflict, which is what we're talking about when we talk about a humanitarian exception.

In an armed conflict, IHL already permits people to kill other people. This is the balance to be considered for humanitarian aid to help those people who might be killed. When we talk about the security balance now, we're talking about funding to terrorist organizations versus the ability to carry out that humanitarian aid. You're adding an extra layer against humanitarian aid.

I'll go back to the earlier question about how MSF can what they're doing. It's because interpretation of Canadian criminal law should be consistent with international law, which includes international humanitarian law. You could already read a humanitarian exception into the law, but that's hard to do, given some of the other language in the act. MSF is doing it in order to carry out their work.

I think relying on IHL and relying on an exemption that's based on IHL already factors in that security balance and the humanitarian balance. We're trying to do it on top by saying this organization, this armed group, is a terrorist group, so therefore it's even more important we not fund it, but we already have to worry about any armed group that's killing civilians.

I think the balance is a little off by not recognizing the work IHL already does to protect that balance.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

We have 30 seconds.

Ms. Davis, in 30 seconds, would you like to add anything to that?

[Jessica Davis]

The only thing I want to add to that is that this bill, to me, strikes an important balance in recognizing the reality on the ground, which is that when international aid organizations operate in conflict zones where terrorist groups are operating, they are going to be providing them funding. There are really no two ways about it. I think it's important for the state to have the ability to calibrate how much we find to be acceptable and in what circumstances.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Diab.

Thank you to all the witnesses. I want to really thank you and apologize for having to cut it short. We have to adjust two panels and have votes in between as well, so thank you.

I will suspend for 60 seconds, and then I'm going to have the next panel up.

Thank you.

[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.

[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]

Thank you, Ms. Salehi.

Next we'll go to Usama Khan for five minutes.

[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.