Justice Committee on May 31st, 2023

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

Please, just let me know if you need me to stop, if the interpretation is not able to go forward.

The purpose of NDP-4 is to introduce a list of geographic areas. We heard that from testimony, particularly from the Aid for Afghanistan coalition. They recommended that the ministers “responsible for the authorization process” also be responsible for determining “which...geographic areas are under [the] substantial control of a terrorist group”, and make a list of the identified areas available to organizations that wish to operate in those geographies.

This amendment is necessary. We know from within the sector that, if we don't have this list, individual humanitarian actors would be forced to guess what geographic areas are of concern to the Canadian government. That's unfair. It puts that onus on the organizations. It would compromise the perceived neutrality and impartiality of the humanitarian actors who are working in these areas, which is hugely problematic.

We are always trying to ensure that those who are working in some of these most challenging areas are able to maintain their neutrality. It keeps them safe. It keeps the people whom they are helping safe. It allows them to do the work that is so vitally important. The solutions offered so far by the government to this particular problem have been unclear and unsatisfactory, and I think the sector has been very united on this, in that they are unacceptable to this point.

As we've heard from witnesses, this is why we brought forward this recommendation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Ms. Thompson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'm Ms. McPherson, actually.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Ms. McPherson. Every time I have a red-eye flight that week, this is what happens.

Mr. Genuis.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I agree that the original version of the bill was inadequate in this respect, and I agree that it's an important objective to ensure that organizations are not in a position where they have to guess what applies where.

Conservatives will be opposing this amendment, because we think that there is a better way of achieving this objective that provides certainty to the sector without requiring the publication of a public list. We are looking forward to sharing that solution shortly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

Ms. Damoff.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Similar to what Mr. Genuis just said, we support the intent of this but know that publishing a list of geographic areas is problematic for the government. However, the aid organizations want some kind of certainty as to whether or not they can operate in certain areas. There is a future amendment coming forward that we will be supporting, and we will not be supporting NDP-4.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Mr. Genuis.

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

Thank you, Chair.

It actually just occurred to me that it might be worth laying out what that amendment is. It'll save us time later, and that way, people following will know what the alternative is.

We are going to propose an amendment later on that requires, if organizations seek information from the government about whether an application is required in a particular case, that a response be given.

It addresses the concern of uncertainty, and it reflects the recognition that things can change very quickly on the ground. If an organization is wanting to do development work in a particular area, they can put in an application; they can ask the question, and the government will tell them yes or no.

This is a real problem that had to be solved, but our concern has been that some of the solutions that have been proposed have just been very broad in their implications beyond the situations of delivering development assistance. Those are things like changing the definition of “terrorist organization” to include only listed entities and not to include groups that are not listed. These kinds of changes would be, I think, more sweeping in their implications.

The requirement for government to respond to questions that are asked addresses the issue. Given that we're trying to deal with this bill quickly, and given the timelines, I think we should focus as narrowly as possible on the specific issues around the delivery of development assistance and try to leave other issues and other potential unintended consequences for other legislation.

Again, I'm just reiterating our opposition to this amendment, but we will be proposing, I think, what is a more precise alternative shortly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you.

Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Frankly, the alternative is putting the onus for all of this on organizations. What that means is that there's no clarity provided whatsoever about when they need to ask, what the time frames are, who they ask and what this all looks like. The potential for this to be weaponized by government is huge.

What happens if an organization is working in an area and the reality changes on the ground? How do they know when they have to ask? This provides very little clarity. What is being proposed provides almost no protection for organizations.

I, again, would urge my colleagues to support NDP-4. I recognize that they are not going to do that, but I want to make it very clear that the alternative solutions being brought forward will not help organizations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Ms. McPherson.

Seeing no other speakers, shall NDP-4 carry?

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The amendment is defeated.

NDP-5 is the same. Am I right?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I won't be moving that, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Okay. Thank you, Ms. McPherson.

Next is BQ-1.

Does Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe want to move BQ-1?

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

Ms. McPherson, we understood that non-governmental organizations prefer amendment NDP‑5 to amendment BQ‑1. Is that correct?

If that's the case, I'll ask for unanimous consent to withdraw amendment BQ‑1 in favour of amendment NDP‑5.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

We won't need unanimous consent, because you haven't moved it yet. If you don't move it, we're okay.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, can I respond to that very quickly?

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Yes, Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

To my colleague, NDP-4 and NDP-5 were the same—they just had different terminologies, which we had already determined.

NDP-4 was what the sector asked for. It was voted against, as you just witnessed, by the Liberals and the Conservatives.

If you were to bring forward BQ-1, I would certainly be in support of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Ms. McPherson.

Now we go to CPC-1.....

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

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

In that case, I'll move amendment BQ‑1.

Do you want me to read it, Mr. Chair? Does everyone have the text in hand?

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Sure. If you want, you can move it.

You can just say that you want to move it. I think that would suffice. But if you want to read it—

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

I move amendment BQ‑1, and I'd like it to be put to the vote immediately, so as not to waste any time. I think everyone has had time to make up their minds about this amendment, since we've discussed it extensively in and out of committee. I don't think I need to demonstrate the validity of this amendment.

I therefore ask that we proceed to the vote immediately.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

We'll have a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we'll move on to CPC-1.01.

I don't know whether Mr. Genuis would like to move it.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I think I have substantially foreshadowed this. This is designed to address the concern about organizations having to potentially guess where the law applies. It says that if organizations ask the government whether they need an authorization in a particular case, the government has to tell them. There's a common law principle of officially induced error, which would effectively mean that if the government told someone they didn't need to apply, they would not be prosecuted if they did not apply. It provides substantial protection for organizations. It provides them with the means of getting information.

It was pointed out earlier that this puts an onus on the organizations to ask the government the question. That's true. All other things being equal, it would be slightly easier if they could just look online. This provides a greater degree of certainty, and it's not that onerous, I think.

Hopefully, we'll be able to develop a process whereby it's not too onerous, and organizations can say at a very simple level, “We plan on doing X in Y region. Do we need to apply or not?” The government will tell them yes or no, and then either they'll be able to make the application, knowing they had to make the application, or they'll be free and clear to proceed.

This, I think, addresses all of the issues around requirements to list applicable places or organizations. It's all designed with the objective of giving the organizations certainty. This is what gives organizations certainty. I think it cleans up a significant problem with the bill, and I think it does so on a basis that is acceptable to the government and, therefore, will not lead to further delays.

It's a reality that this bill is not perfect, but if we tried to amend it in ways that were fundamentally unacceptable to the government, they would just not call it going forward. I think the Conservatives have tried to play a reasonable role in finding compromises that work, and I think this amendment achieves that.