Evidence of meeting #68 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 mcpherson.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thank you, Chair.
We will support this amendment, and I thank my Bloc and NDP colleagues for bringing forward previous amendments that would not have been workable, from the government's point of view, to provide those lists.
This addresses the concern that organizations have expressed to me of, “How do we know?” If there isn't a published list on the website, it's a simple matter of asking.
One of the questions that came to me was, what if a group is working in northern Nigeria, for example, and they don't know? The situation changes. They can ask the government, but my Conservative colleague mentioned there is in common law a principle that they're not going to be held liable for operating somewhere when the situation changes and they're well-intentioned where they're working.
I think this is a valuable compromise to give organizations the certainty they've been asking for to know whether or not they can go into a region or continue operating in a region, or if there's an organization that is questionable and they just want that certainty.
Therefore, we will support this amendment.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This amendment, to me, is the epitome of folks who have never, in fact, worked on the ground in humanitarian or international development contexts. This is putting the onus, as I said, very much on the organization to ask the public safety minister for guidance. We're expecting there to be some policy things made clear within this legislation. Any time that is the case, it means that this can be weaponized.
All of a sudden, if we get a different government or if we get a different minister, the ability for the minister to weaponize against organizations is there. We have no understanding from this legislation of who the organization would ask or what the timelines for that would be. Things do not move quickly when you have one ministry, let alone when you have three. What happens if Global Affairs Canada and Public Safety disagree? What if the determination changes? Do we have to ask every single day in certain contexts?
This is just adding another layer of bureaucracy to what is already a ridiculous process for organizations to have to go through. This is not a solution. This is not what the sector asked for. This is very clearly legislators, who have no idea what humanitarian and international development looks like on the ground, trying to make a decision for those organizations.
It's a mistake, and we cannot support this.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I disagree in general with Ms. McPherson, but I would be open to the idea of saying that there should be a timeline around the response. I would be curious to know what other members around the table think.
If the concern is that a government could, theoretically, maliciously not respond, or give bad information to certain organizations that it doesn't like, which was, I think, the implication, I don't think it's that likely in this process, but I also think that's a risk in general with an authorization regime, isn't it? An authorization regime involves the government authorizing activity or not. If the concern is a timely response to that initial request, though, I think that's a plausible subamendment. I would be open to hearing what others think on that.
Again, I think this is a good compromise. If that subamendment is not forthcoming, then we should just adopt the amendment.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I think it's always risky putting a timeline on it. While I agree with Ms. McPherson that we want it done in a timely way, for us to decide right now.... I think that's something we could do in regulations. Also, we know that this legislation will be up for review. If it turns out that it's not working, it's something that can be considered when it's up for review.
I don't think we can settle on a timeline today, to be honest with you. I think the message is loud and clear that we want it done, and that it must be done quickly, but again, I think that's something that's developed during the regulations, not put in the legislation itself.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I would just say too that in terms of a timeline, realistically, we have an under-resourced Global Affairs Canada that is not able to meet the timelines it's given already. We already know that you can set a timeline and it's not necessarily adhered to. That already happens.
I don't think it's worthwhile to be doing that, at this point.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Seeing no more speakers, we can put this to a vote.
Shall CPC-1.01 carry?
Is this a recorded vote, or agreed on division?
5 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I think we could have a recorded vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
May 31st, 2023 / 5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Next is NDP-6.
I want to have some clarification on this from Ms. McPherson on what the term “Canadian” refers to on line 9 of page 3 of Bill C-41. This will assist us in determining whether the amendment—
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
That solves that issue. Thank you, Ms. McPherson.
I believe there's a new NDP-7.
Ms. McPherson, would you like to move that?
5 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Yes, please, Mr. Chair. I can speak to it.
With regard to NDP-7, basically, we heard during the testimony and we heard when we spoke to the sector that the term “links” is not defined anywhere in the legislation, nor does it carry any legal weight. The Aid for Afghanistan coalition shared this with us. We heard this time and time again. The language in the bill is too discretionary. It could risk guilt by association. That was something Ms. West clearly explained during her testimony. Because the term “links” is so vague, this could lead to the denial of applications based on conjecture of a relationship between the terrorist group and an applicant. It doesn't give the reassurance that organizations are looking for.
We therefore put forward this amendment, with some specific language used to assess the relationships between the applicant and the other parties.
Part (a) of this amendment replaces the term “links” with clear criteria that the minister will take into account.
Part (b) of the amendment replaces lines 2 to 7 on page 5, which mentions “is being or has been investigated”. It has been argued that the simple fact of being investigated or charged therefore presumes guilt, which opens the door to discriminatory or overly discretionary decisions.
We are asking for this just to provide the clarity that the sector has been asking for.
Thank you.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Are there any other comments? No.
Shall NDP-7 carry? No? I see nays.
Could we have a recorded vote, Clerk, please?
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
It is defeated. We are now on amendment BQ-2.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Chair, to be honest, I don't want the committee to waste time debating amendments. Everyone is already familiar with the amendments.
I'm tabling amendment BQ‑2. I ask for the vote, Mr. Chair, because I think everyone has already done their analysis.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
If there's no debate, we'll move it to a vote.
Could we have a recorded vote, please, Clerk?
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
It is defeated.
We are now on amendment NDP-7.1.
Ms. McPherson, would you like to move it?
5:05 p.m.
NDP