Justice Committee on April 24th, 2023

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm listening to the discussion, and I'm sympathetic to both sides of it insofar as I think we do need to look at amendments that create an obligation for the government to provide information to humanitarian organizations either by publishing that information publicly or at least by making that information available to those organizations in some way so that they're not guessing about what areas or what organizations and they can have some good, reasonable guidance around that.

My view of NDP-2 is that it makes changes to our terrorist-financing framework that go substantially beyond just the issue of humanitarian organizations. My reading of it is that it, in fact, changes our terrorist-financing framework such that you can only be charged with terrorist-financing offences if you are financing a listed entity, which is a change from the current law, where you could be charged for financing a terrorist group that's not a terrorist entity.

I see some of the officials nodding, which suggests that maybe I'm on the right track here.

We're not just talking about humanitarian organizations. We're talking about this: If a new organization that the Government of Canada is not aware of emerges on the scene and is involved in explicitly terrorist activity, and somebody in Canada is intentionally organizing fundraisers for that organization, they cannot be convicted of terrorist-financing offences if that organization is not yet listed.

My concern is just that we should try to limit the impacts of our amendments on terrorist-financing laws today to apply to the things that are necessary to enable humanitarian organizations to do their work, and not do things in the context of this bill that are going to make broader, more dramatic reforms to terrorist-financing law.

There may be an argument for saying that the government should list every terrorist organization, that it shouldn't be convicting people for terrorist financing if they're funding groups that are not listed and that the government should do the work of listing. I don't personally agree with that argument. I think maybe there's an argument to be made, and that's an issue that can be studied. However, I would just say that we limit our deliberations.... My suggestion would be to have this bill deal, as precisely as possible, with the circumstances of humanitarian organizations.

On that basis, I agree with some aspects of the intention. I don't support NDP-2, but I think we do need to look at later amendments that would create obligations for the government to provide information to development organizations that would help them do their work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

Now we have Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

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

I've already spoken, Mr. Chair. It was about our interpreters.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you.

Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

From my perspective, I'm wondering what amendments the government or the Conservative Party would be willing to bring forward to deal with this, because this is a concern.

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

We have CPC-2, which is later on in the package, and we've been discussing informally some possible changes that address the concerns the government may have with CPC-2. I think it's good for us to try to work toward a consensus.

CPC-2, in its current form, requires the Minister of Public Safety to publish information on the website of the government that would indicate the organizations the government views as terrorist groups for the purposes of these provisions around humanitarian assistance, as well as the areas where they believe this is happening. It says that no person shall be convicted of an offence under the subsection “if they establish that, in good faith, they provided or supported the provision of international development assistance on the basis of information published under” the previous subsection.

Certainly, we're open to some wordsmithing around that amendment, but this amendment tries to create an obligation on the government to provide information, without making the root and branch changes to terrorist-financing law that I think would result from the adoption of NDP-2.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Ms. McPherson, do you want to move your NDP-2? It's already been moved.

Shall NDP-2 carry?

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)

Ms. McPherson, would you like to move NDP-3?

[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.

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

Chair, we are directionally very supportive of this. I would like to propose a subamendment that I think will find support. It—

[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.

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

I'd like to challenge the Chair's ruling.

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

I think you'll find agreement to defeat the chair's ruling, on division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Shall the chair's ruling be sustained?

Ms. Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

We would vote to support your decision.

(Ruling of the chair overturned on division)

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Now NDP-3 is debatable.

Mr. Genuis, you're more than welcome to speak.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'm now moving the subamendment, which is simply to add this to the end of the text in the new proposed subsection 83.03(4), “while using reasonable efforts to minimize any benefit to terrorist groups.”

I think that provides clarity that, in the process of providing this assistance, the organizations involved should make reasonable efforts to do all they can to absolutely minimize flows or benefits to terrorist groups. I think that's fairly obvious. It may already be implied by the existing language, but I think it is a good point to underline very clearly. Certainly, the organizations that we deal with seek to do this anyway, and I don't think they would have any objection to the added clarity in the law around that expectation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Mr. Genuis, we'll have to have your amendment in writing.

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

You do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Mr. Clerk, do you have it in writing?

Do you want to read the amendment while he searches—

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

It's just adding the words, “while using reasonable efforts to minimize any benefit to terrorist groups.”

The whole thing would read:

(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 while using reasonable efforts to minimize any benefit to terrorist groups.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Ms. Damoff....

No, it's Ms. McPherson—my apologies.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I could be everybody at the table if you want.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I have called you Ms. Thomas, Ms. Damoff, Ms. Taylor. I think I've called you everything today.

Go ahead, Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to say that I am supportive of the subamendment to our amendment.

I believe we have heard from MSF, the International Red Cross, Leah West and the Aid for Afghanistan coalition, and there is quite a lot of support within the sector for this.

As I mentioned before, this is something that I believe should have been part of the legislation at the beginning.

I would like a recorded vote on it, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

If everyone has the text, shall we vote on the subamendment? Does anybody need time to read it? No?

(Subamendment agreed to)

(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

That was unanimously carried. Thank you.

Next we have Bloc amendment 0.1.

This amendment is not in the package. It was circulated in a separate document, along with version 2 of the package, by email before the meeting.

Monsieur Brunelle-Duceppe, do you want to move this forward?