Evidence of meeting #59 for Justice and Human Rights 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.
5:55 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
At what point did he contact you? Are you able to tell us?
5:55 p.m.
Head of Policy, World Vision Canada
It was throughout the process, and I think the details—
5:55 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
I mean the first time the minister's office contacted you to consult on the potential bill. When were you contacted?
5:55 p.m.
Head of Policy, World Vision Canada
That would have been either in February or March of 2022, right around the time when the special committee on Afghanistan was conducting its—
5:55 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
That's what I wanted to know. It was only a rhetorical question, because we talked about it a lot with the minister.
As I understand it, your main objective is to get the bill passed as quickly as possible. We agree with that. That's kind of what I was saying when I addressed the first panel; I believe you were there and you heard me.
In your opinion, is the bill acceptable as it stands now? If the opposition parties and government could not agree, would you prefer to have the bill as it's written today, or are you adamant that it be amended before the House can vote on it?
5:55 p.m.
Chief of Emergency Management and General Counsel, Canadian Red Cross
I think that it would be substantially strengthened by some of the amendments that were discussed in the earlier session and are aligned to the coalition's submission, but I don't think that any of them are not in keeping with the purpose or out of scope. I think it would substantially make it better, and then we need to continue this discussion in the longer term.
5:55 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Let's take a hypothetical situation, like a huge earthquake that happens in a region controlled by terrorist agencies. In your opinion, would the bill as currently drafted do the job in a situation like that?
5:55 p.m.
Chief of Emergency Management and General Counsel, Canadian Red Cross
What I would say is that it will come down to the administration, and that's why we focused our intervention on how it will be administered. If there's proper resourcing and if we see what we've seen in the sanctions regime, it would enable us to resume life-saving work to provide life-saving assistance in that context, and we wouldn't be able to do that now.
5:55 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Quickly, I just want to know what's more important to you: Is it amending the bill or getting it passed? That's really my main question.
5:55 p.m.
Head of Policy, World Vision Canada
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I think there are amendments on the bill that are deemed by legal counsel to be in scope, and I know our organization's within scope.
I think rarely is a bill tabled in perfection on the first instance, so I would urge everyone around the table to look at the amendments that have been put forward by the organizations that are going to be subject to the bill, and look at them in good faith and have conversations before Monday, when clause-by-clause consideration starts, and find agreement.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.
We will now suspend. I'll get to Ms. McPherson when we come back. That will be 10 minutes after the vote result is announced.
Thank you.
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
May I have everyone resume?
We have House resources only until seven o'clock, so I just want to make the maximum use of our time.
We'll begin with the last person from the first round, Ms. McPherson, for five minutes.
6:35 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to all of the witnesses for being here today and for the important work you do. Thank you for your words on the women and girls in Afghanistan. I think I speak on behalf of all of us at this table in saying that the ultimate goal is to ensure that there is help. One thing, though, that I think is important to recognize is that this is not just about Afghanistan, but will have decades-long implications.
Another thing I want to comment on if I could, Ms. Avis, is that you spoke a lot about commitment to the journey and next steps and whatnot.
Unfortunately, as parliamentarians, we don't vote on next steps. We don't vote on the journey. We vote on legislation that is before us, and this legislation has an awful lot of ifs in it, a lot of things that make me question whether it's fit for purpose.
I worked in the sector for a very long time. I understand how long it takes to get policy from Global Affairs or to get things through Global Affairs Canada. I am deeply worried about their ability to make decisions fast enough for the humanitarian context.
We heard testimony just a few days ago from witnesses who considered six months a long time for this, but they didn't put it out of the wheelhouse. Six months in the humanitarian context is basically useless. It becomes basically useless in many contexts.
We waited 18 months for this legislation. It gives you an idea of the understanding of the urgency, so when we talk about a commitment to the journey, when we talk about whether or not this government is fit for purpose to actually implement the bill they have put before us, I think the NDP has some very serious concerns.
There are a couple of things I would like to start with. One is that we worry about timing. We worry about how this will be implemented. We are bringing forward some amendments. We are bringing forward an amendment for a humanitarian carve-out, for example, exempting from the authorization process any humanitarian assistance activities conducted under the auspices of impartial humanitarian organizations in accordance with international humanitarian law. Obviously, this would not cover the entire range of activities that the organizations represented here do, and I think we've heard the difference between humanitarian activities and development. This amendment would simply carve out those activities.
I'll ask the three of you if your organizations would be supportive of that sort of an exemption.
April 19th, 2023 / 6:35 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Islamic Relief Canada
Yes, absolutely.
6:35 p.m.
Chief of Emergency Management and General Counsel, Canadian Red Cross
Yes. As we said in our testimony, we're not against that type of an exemption and we think other tweaks would substantially strengthen the bill.
I think that as long as we're committed to that path of expediency....
6:35 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Well, “we” can't be; it's the government's role to have that thing, so we can commit all we want, but if the legislation doesn't explicitly have.... I have some challenges with that too.
Sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Fischer.
6:35 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Okay. Thank you.
With regard to the work your organizations are doing in the field, can you speak very briefly about what this would look like? I think we've become very focused on Afghanistan because, of course, that is the impetus for this bill and what we've been calling for, for 18 months. However, we all know that organizations work in multiple situations where humanitarian aid and international development are all required.
Can you talk a little bit about the implications of this bill for your work in other areas—for example, Gaza, Nigeria, Mali, the Central African Republic and Sudan?
6:40 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Islamic Relief Canada
Sure. I can begin.
I think that if the bill, as it stands, became law, we would obviously do an analysis. The prudent approach in a lot of contexts would be to pause projects until we could get authorization. That might include projects in Palestine, and possibly in Yemen and Syria, for which that analysis would have to happen.
I think activities would immediately have to be paused and information would have to be gathered for making this application, so I think that would have a negative effect.
6:40 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Just really quickly before I ask the other two witnesses, you mentioned Palestine and Yemen.
Currently we are selling arms to other sides in both of those conflicts, so wouldn't the potential for that to be politicized be quite high, then?
6:40 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Islamic Relief Canada
Yes, and I want to mention that I think those names that just came up.... The onus right now is on the organizations to determine if they're listed and by what definition. I think that's problematic, because it's not coming from the government. I think one recommendation is for modifications.
As it stands, each organization would do its own risk assessment on a geographic region on whether there is significant influence or control by a listed terrorist entity. That, in itself, is problematic.
Once they do that, initiating the process and paper work to start negotiating with the government to get that approval would, I think, add a lot of bureaucratic burden, red tape and administrative burden. That's on top of all the other CRA regulations that charities have to comply with in Canada, which is a more cumbersome process than in any of our other partners in the EU or the U.S.
6:40 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
You'd have all that while a humanitarian crisis means people's lives are at risk.
I'll have to get to the other witnesses at the next round.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Thank you, Ms. McPherson.
Next we'll go to Mr. Brock for four minutes.
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
