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.
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Khan, just to start off, did I hear you correctly? Did you say that if this legislation passes, you will have to pause projects that are currently under way in order to seek the authorization?
6:40 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Islamic Relief Canada
Yes. If the bill is law, then from a risk analysis standpoint, if we assess that some contexts have a significant influence from listed entities, then the prudent thing would be to pause and get that permission before we—
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
That's even though under the current legal framework, you feel comfortable carrying on those projects based on your risk analysis.
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Okay. That's really important for us to know, because it maybe counters the “rush it through even if it's not perfect” message. It's something we all have to think about.
We've had amendments put forward that involve limiting the scope of this bill to certain geographic areas that would be defined by the government, or limiting it to terrorist entities only and not terrorist organizations in general. This would provide greater certainty for the sector. However, it raises another potential problem, which is that if there is territory that is controlled by a terrorist organization—not an entity—or a territory that is controlled by a terrorist entity that is not listed as part of that listing process, then—as I understand the legislation—you wouldn't be able to apply for an exemption in that case. You would simply be excluded from doing work there. Providing that list could narrow the places for which you could apply for an exemption and therefore prevent you from doing any kind of assistance or support in other areas.
That raises some potential concern for me about those amendments. Do you want to respond to that concern?
Go ahead, Ms. Avis.
6:40 p.m.
Chief of Emergency Management and General Counsel, Canadian Red Cross
The current regime would apply generally, so we would be able to undertake our activities in the vast majority of contexts globally.
Again, I really want to re-emphasize that for us, a critical amendment that we're looking for is that “substantial control” piece. In a situation of sufficient or substantial control, that is the limited circumstance in which we would have to apply and where the authorization regime would be applicable. In all of the contexts, it's only where there's substantial control. Where there's substantial control, we would have to apply.
It is true that we're seeking further clarification by saying that “listed entities” is more clear than “terrorist” generally, so some of the amendments in our proposition are to tighten the limited circumstance that we're really talking about here today.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Unless I didn't follow, I don't know if that really answers....
I'm concerned that if we limit this legislation to only listed entities and there's a place that is controlled by a terrorist organization that is not a listed entity, you can't apply for the exemption because the—
6:45 p.m.
Chief of Emergency Management and General Counsel, Canadian Red Cross
It would be permissible.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
It would be permissible.
It seems that it has to be clear that it would be permissible, because right now, under the Criminal Code, it would not be permissible.
6:45 p.m.
Chief of Emergency Management and General Counsel, Canadian Red Cross
It would be.
Under the current Criminal Code—and maybe my colleague wants to expand—as the coalition reads the bill, we're able to undertake our work in the vast majority of contexts.
If you were to accept amendments to allow for the definition of listed entities, it would mean that we wouldn't have to apply in even more circumstances. We would only have to apply in the very narrow circumstance in which it would be, in our case, substantial control by listed entities. That's where the authorization would apply.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Assuming it's permissible in cases not covered by the regime, then why don't we just not create the regime?
6:45 p.m.
Chief of Emergency Management and General Counsel, Canadian Red Cross
I think the legislation was seeking to provide clarity and assurance in situations like Afghanistan, which are very extreme, where at every turn you are wholly unable to not interact with a listed terrorist entity.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
There might be cases in which that same reality exists, not because of a terrorist entity but because of a terrorist organization that is not an entity. You'd be assuming that this activity is permissible if that area is not identified, but if you're assuming that it's permissible in that case, why would you make that assumption if it's not explicit in law?
6:45 p.m.
Chief of Emergency Management and General Counsel, Canadian Red Cross
The bill as it currently reads doesn't use listed entities as a defined concept. It truly is trying to talk about a circumstance in which it's completely, wholly, entirely unavoidable. In the circumstance you're describing, along that continuum, a multitude of other regulations and safeguards enable us to work in that jurisdiction in keeping with our commitments in providing international humanitarian assistance. This bill is seeking to talk about the very narrow circumstances that are currently prohibited under the Criminal Code, which is a context like Afghanistan, which is very extreme. Everything else is permissible.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Thank you, Mr. Genuis.
Just for the record, Mr. Genuis, I gave you over five minutes, so I will be giving the next person five minutes as well.
Mr. Naqvi, you have five minutes.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
To all the witnesses, thank you for being here today and thank you for a very engaged conversation.
The last time I spoke on the issue was when Minister Mendicino was at the committee. I'll ask the same question that I asked him, because there's a struggle that I'm having in my mind. I will start with Mr. Khan, and then we can move down the chain.
How do you balance between concerns around an entity or a regime like Taliban, which is extremely oppressive in nature...? The things they're doing and have done, and their views around women, are abhorrent to me personally and I'm sure to Canadians. That's not to mention some of the practices they deploy in undermining decades of work that has been done in Afghanistan in terms of giving women more freedom, ensuring there's education, and doing important development work, which all of you have been part of. Juxtapose that with the humanitarian crisis that's taking place right now in Afghanistan since the Taliban has come into power and the state of affairs there as it relates to people.
As a government, as policy-makers, we're trying to ensure that money doesn't go in any way to the Taliban while we're also trying to help people. I want to hear from you on this: What is the best possible way to meet that right balance that we've been trying to accomplish?
I'll start with Mr. Khan.
6:50 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Islamic Relief Canada
Sure. Thank you for the question.
The most important stakeholders in this, I think, are all the women and girls and people who are struggling in Afghanistan and who need help. It would be placing them at the heart of the discussion, finding solutions on how we as Canadians can reach them, and making sure that we can be that bridge in a trustworthy way for generous Canadian donors.
I think I can speak for all 19 of the organizations represented here. These are sophisticated operations. It's not the only context where we've dealt with a similar situation. In terms of the policies, the judgments and the expertise that has been gained, I think that sometimes the perception that a significant diversion of funds will happen to the government is overblown. In this example, because I looked into it, only 3% of the funds were going as taxes to the government. I think that's reasonable. We didn't feel that there was an undue influence or that there was an undue diversion of funds to the Taliban government.
If the onus is put on the agencies to make that judgment call and more than 50% to 60% was going to the Taliban, I don't think any of the agencies would proceed in getting that access.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Do you have an internal mechanism by which you make a determination that, for instance, you are no longer going to operate in a particular jurisdiction because you don't feel comfortable as to where some of the hard-earned or hard-raised donation dollars may go?
April 19th, 2023 / 6:50 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Islamic Relief Canada
With respect to the donors who give us the money, we take that custodianship seriously, so if we feel that the money that is intended for women and girls, the people, is not going there, then we pull out, cease operations and find a different geographic area within the country or demographic.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Can I hear from the Red Cross in terms of your views on the balance we're trying to accomplish through this legislation?
6:50 p.m.
Head of Policy, World Vision Canada
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.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Naqvi.
For our last rounds, which are two and a half minutes each, we'll go to Monsieur Brunelle-Duceppe and then Ms. McPherson.
Please go ahead.
6:50 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We can agree on one thing: As my colleague said so eloquently and as we heard throughout the speeches and questions as well, everyone here wants Canadian NGOs to be able to work on the ground in Afghanistan to help people, but not just in Afghanistan. If other crises arise in territories controlled by terrorist agencies, we want to be able to provide assistance.
Canada has nevertheless been a leader in humanitarian aid throughout the ages, and this is coming from a Quebec sovereignist. Currently, we're faced with a bill that doesn't have unanimous support among NGOs, certain government departments, the opposition parties and the government. However, we do have a goal that is unanimously supported.
What I want to know is, how can we drum up unanimous support? I want you to help me in my role as a parliamentarian to find that unanimity so that we can help people on the ground. I need your assistance, because you're the experts.
6:55 p.m.
Head of Policy, World Vision Canada
We do so by finding consensus where there can be consensus. We do it by recognizing, again coming back to Afghanistan, that the urgency perhaps in Afghanistan bestows upon everyone the need to make more compromises than they would in a different context, and we do it by listening to the experts. You have heard from a variety of organizations, but I think there is actually agreement.
I think there's agreement, at least among experts, that you can do both when it comes to the blanket exemption that is being proposed while Bill C-41 is being fine-tuned. That's the ideal-case scenario that's emerging from today, so we can try our best and we will do that. We think everybody, including MSF and others, will continue to engage with you over the coming days, and if we can be helpful in those deliberations, we'll obviously continue to do that.