Debates of June 9th, 2023

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-41, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Criminal Code

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 8, Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts, as amended, is deemed concurred in at report stage on division.

(Bill, as amended, concurred in)

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 8, the House will now proceed to third reading of this bill.

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Ahuntsic-Cartierville, QC]

moved that Bill C-41, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, today we conclude debate on Bill C-41 before sending it off to the Senate. This legislation aims to address important aspects of the deepening crisis in Afghanistan and responds to calls from Canadian humanitarian aid agencies to deliver relief to a country on the brink.

Once again, the committee process did the good work I have seen time and time again in this place, making the bill we have before us today better than it was, better because we listened and we responded.

We included an important amendment from the member for Edmonton Strathcona to include a humanitarian carve-out in the bill. I will expand more on that later, but I thank her for bringing this forward so we could unanimously support it. As someone who has worked in the humanitarian sector, she brings a passion to her work that reflects her clear desire for a better world.

Although we were both elected in 2015, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and I have never worked together before. There are many issues on which we have divergent views, but on the issue of aid to Afghanistan and to those most in urgent need, we are on the same page. I want to sincerely thank him for the patient and collaborative approach he brought to this bill. I can confidently say we would not be here today without his efforts.

My friend from the Bloc Québécois, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, asked at committee:

Can the committee members make some concessions and manage to balance out this bill to get a deal as quickly as possible?...As a parliamentarian, I'm trying to see what's acceptable to humanitarian organizations to get this bill passed as quickly as possible.

That is exactly what we accomplished with the bill before us now. I thank the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean for his passion, for ensuring we are acting to save lives in Afghanistan and around the world, for his trust and his friendship, and for the productive way we worked together.

Before talking about the changes made to the bill, I want to reiterate what brought us here. I am proud of the cross-party collaborative efforts made by the Special Committee on Afghanistan and the important recommendations put forward by that committee, reflecting the work Canadian non-governmental organizations and humanitarian aid agencies have put forward as a pathway to deliver aid to Afghanistan.

The situation in Afghanistan is haunting. The Afghan people have persisted through four decades of war, and since the forceful capture of the country by the Taliban, the world has witnessed the erosion of fundamental rights and the steady deterioration of social and economic systems. This has created the largest humanitarian crisis in the world.

I want to remind the House that Afghanistan was a country that was reliant on foreign aid before the takeover by the Taliban. According to the special committee's report:

The World Bank had assessed that Afghanistan’s economy was “shaped by fragility and aid dependence.” Grants were financing some 75% of total public expenditure and were responsible for around 45% of Afghanistan’s gross domestic product in 2020. With the abrupt [and violent] return to power of the Taliban, Afghanistan—whose currency reserves held abroad were frozen—experienced a significant fiscal contraction at the same time as it essentially became cut-off from the international banking and payments systems. That occurred because the Taliban have long been [rightly] subject to sanctions in relation to terrorism.

An important motion was passed at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights following the passage of Bill C-41 reiterating:

That the committee report to the House that it firmly denounces the Taliban and rejects any recognition or legitimization of their control over Afghan territory. In particular, the committee denounces the Taliban system of gender discrimination, systemic violence targeting minority communities, reprisals against former members of the Afghan National Security and Defence Forces, attacks on freedom of the press, and other violations of fundamental human rights. The committee believes that the Taliban must remain a listed terrorist organization.

The overall result for Afghanistan of the takeover by the Taliban has been the near economic and institutional collapse, including an inability to provide the most basic services and pay civil servants' salaries. The net effect for the Afghan people is that prices have increased, livelihoods have disappeared and household resources have been exhausted. Egregious human rights violations are taking place, in particular impacting women and girls.

To encapsulate the enormity of this situation, John Aylieff, regional director for Asia and the Pacific in the World Food Programme, told the special committee, “Today, millions of people in Afghanistan—young children, families and communities—stand at the precipice of inhumane hunger and destitution.”

Of the 23 million people who require food assistance, nearly nine million were one step away from famine, while some one million children were at risk of perishing this year from acute malnutrition. The population of Afghanistan is 40 million, and 23 million require food assistance. Canadian aid agencies are ready and willing to help.

As Michael Messenger, CEO of World Vision Canada, described, they had two containers, “full of packets of ready-to-use therapeutic food...to treat children facing the severest forms of malnutrition. This [is food that] can literally bring children back from the brink of death by starvation.” The organization could not ship it to Afghanistan, despite the pleas from their team on the ground. Each container would have helped more than 900 children.

Martin Fischer, director of policy at World Vision Canada, reiterated recently at the justice committee their organization's inability to deliver aid in Afghanistan, saying, “every organization has a different risk appetite and arrives at conclusions regarding risk in a different way. For World Vision Canada, there was a decision that we wouldn't find workarounds, either any through our global partnerships or any other way”.

Bill C-41 should provide registered Canadian organizations the clarity and assurances needed to deliver humanitarian assistance and meet the basic needs of the people of Afghanistan, without fear of prosecution for violating Canada's anti-terrorism laws. Canada has a long and rich history of fighting for human rights and delivering life-saving assistance abroad.

Over the last 20 years, many Afghans experienced improved access to health services and education and were able to participate in efforts to build their democracy. This occurred, in no small part, thanks to the efforts of Canadian organizations providing aid and support of a generation of leaders, many of whom were women, who were building a better country for Afghans.

Currently, the Criminal Code contains strong counter-terrorism financing provisions. Specifically, under paragraph 83.03(b), it is prohibited to directly or indirectly provide or make property available knowing it could be used by or will benefit a terrorist group. These provisions are having a significant impact on Canada's ability to deliver aid and other forms of international assistance, namely in Afghanistan. During the committee process, we heard from eight organizations who asked for changes to the bill.

Joseph Belliveau, executive director of Doctors Without Borders, testified:

Principled humanitarian work is recognized and protected by international humanitarian law, or IHL. Humanitarian organizations, such as MSF, providing essential services impartially with no commercial, political or other objective must be afforded the protection of IHL. Under IHL, humanitarian assistance cannot be considered support for any party to a conflict, even one deemed “terrorist”. In other words, providing humanitarian aid cannot be considered a crime.

IHL is integral to Canadian law. As party to the Geneva Conventions, Canada has an obligation to uphold IHL and must, according to recent United Nations Security Council resolutions, ensure that domestic counterterror legislation is compatible with IHL.

Canada's Supreme Court has similarly affirmed that the Criminal Code must be interpreted such that “innocent, socially useful or casual acts” with no criminal intent are not criminalized.

MSF acknowledges that Bill C-41 aims to facilitate rather than curtail humanitarian action. Unfortunately, Bill C-41 and the counterterror parts of the Criminal Code it relates to are, in their current formulation, inconsistent with IHL and Canadian law and will undermine Canadian humanitarianism.

We listened to MSF and adopted the NDP's amendment in Bill C-41 to amend the Criminal Code to create a humanitarian assistance carve-out from the terrorist financing offences in section 83.03, clarifying that:

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

Moreover, for permissible development activities in addition to the humanitarian carve-out, eligible persons and organizations could be granted certain authorizations that would shield them from criminal liability for their operations in a geographic area that is controlled by a terrorist group. This could include education, immigration services, livelihood supports or health services that could not be captured under the definition of humanitarian assistance.

The authorizations would also cover implementing partners or service providers involved in the delivery of the permissible activities. This includes the delivery of aid, in addition to support services related to immigration, including resettlement efforts and safe passage activities.

To be clear, strict measures would still be applied to prevent financial flow from reaching individuals linked to terrorist organizations where possible. Humanitarian organizations are aware of the risk of sending humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. They are also experts in the field, and they best understand how to deploy aid in the most efficient way possible to reach the most people in need without it going to the Taliban.

I want to quote a member of Islamic Relief Canada, an organization that I am proud to have in my riding of Oakville North—Burlington. They said:

In the summer of 2021, when the Taliban took over the government, we wanted to understand our risk appetite as Islamic Relief, so we figured out and calculated what the taxes were. They were around 3%. This is what we did at Islamic Relief. The U.K. and the U.S., our counterparts, do have broader humanitarian exemptions, and we wanted to continue helping the people of Afghanistan with Canadian donor funds that our donors from across the country wanted to give for Afghanistan, so we carved out the 3% that was for government taxes, and our counterparts in the U.K. subsidized that portion. As a result, no Canadian funds were being used that went to the government.

This testimony at committee helped parliamentarians understand why a humanitarian carve-out is not only so important but also possible to implement. Knowing that these humanitarian organizations are already taking it upon themselves to implement operational policies and risk assessments, to ensure that aid is getting to vulnerable Afghans and not the Taliban, helps reduce the overall risk of monies flowing to individuals linked to terrorism.

I would again note in the House that the authorization regime would not be restricted to Afghanistan. It would apply to any geographic area controlled by a terrorist group in order to be able to respond to similar situations.

Jessica Davis testified that approximately 8% of countries worldwide are controlled by terrorist groups; these include Nigeria, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and parts of West Africa, where terrorist groups are controlling territories. Bill C-41 would apply to those areas in the world as well.

At committee, we heard about the need to reduce the burden on humanitarian organizations in having to determine by themselves which geographic areas are controlled by a terrorist group. We heard that they require clarity. The amendment adopted at committee, put forward by my Conservative colleague, places a positive onus on the public safety minister to provide written information at the request of an applicant as to whether an authorization is required. This amendment considers the dynamic nature of terrorism and allows for the most up-to-date assessment of terrorist groups and their control of geographic areas.

Another important change made at committee ensures that if an application is refused, applicants would be able to reapply after 30 days. This was amended to shorten the original 180-day reapplication waiting period. This was requested by humanitarian aid organizations and reflects their desire for their organizations to reapply quickly, should they be unsuccessful for any reason. Applicants can also seek recourse through a judicial review.

An amendment to the original bill also explicitly restricts the use of applicant information for the purpose of the authorization request or its renewal. This responds to a request from humanitarian aid organizations, which articulated concerns about how the data collected in their authorization applications would be processed by departments and agencies. Moreover, information sharing by prescribed departments allows them to collect and disclose information in assisting the public safety minister in this regime; it has been limited to the purposes of the administration and enforcement of the regime. The public safety minister must ensure that the assisting entities comply.

The bill also calls for a comprehensive review of the operation of the authorization regime. This provision was amended to require that it occur within the first year rather than the fifth year of this section coming into force, followed by every five years thereafter.

I recognize that some people are skeptical about how the new regime will work, and they are eager to see regulations developed following passage of the bill. This shortened one-year timeline will ensure that we can quickly address any shortcomings, should they arise.

The Minister of Public Safety must table a report to Parliament, which must also include a plan and timeline to remedy any deficiencies. As parliamentarians, we have an obligation to all Afghans to pass this legislation, because aid to Afghanistan remains absolutely vital. With this legislation, Canada is responding to the continuing crisis in Afghanistan by facilitating the provision of humanitarian assistance, health services, education and human rights programs, as well as safe passage and immigration processing for vulnerable individuals destined for Canada. This will also help our government work with like-minded countries and international partners to advance our international priorities.

Canada has a hard-earned international reputation as both a fierce protector and a steadfast source of humanitarian assistance. It has committed to accepting at least 40,000 refugees from Afghanistan. So far, 32,745 have arrived in Canada. A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of greeting a plane of 280 Afghan refugees arriving in Toronto via the UAE. It is impossible to express the joy that these people had upon arriving in Canada. One gentleman told me that Canada is the best country in the world, and I would agree with that. I looked at the young girls arriving, thinking that they could now have an education. Most importantly, these individuals will be able to go to bed knowing they are safe.

These refugees who will make Canada home are the lucky ones. However, millions remain in Afghanistan and need our help today. Our government will continue to collaborate closely with international Canadian partners as we work together to accomplish our shared humanitarian and development assistance commitments.

Martin Fischer, head of policy at World Vision Canada, stated:

We believe that with some fine tuning, it is a critical step forward in a longer-term journey to ensure that Canadian humanitarian organizations as well as those delivering other services in these difficult contexts can operate in a neutral, impartial and independent manner in the most difficult and exceptional circumstances.... We cannot lose sight of the severity of the humanitarian crisis there and the obligations that Canada and Canadians have to help.

I firmly believe that the committee process has ensured that the bill we have before us has been improved by the input of civil society and the collaborative work of parliamentarians, as well as that the fine tuning has been achieved. This legislation will truly make a change that will save the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in the world.

As Martin said, as Canadians, we have to help. It is in our nature. As parliamentarians, we have an obligation to help. Bill C-41 will ensure that humanitarian organizations can deliver aid to Afghanistan and save lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill took a lot of hard work and co-operation. Obviously, in the end, it was about compromise. That means that no one is 100% satisfied. However, despite everything, I think that politics is all about the art of compromise.

I would like to ask my colleague whether there were any proposals made by opposition members that she thinks should have perhaps ended up in the bill but did not.

Does my colleague think that the bill goes far enough? Could it have gone further?

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

Mr. Speaker, as my friend and colleague knows, other changes were proposed. I know that there are those who feel that we should have gone further in some of the changes. I hope that, with the change to a one-year review, if there are any shortcomings and areas where we need to go further, we will be able to remedy that quickly so that aid organizations have the certainty they need.

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

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have many questions about how this regime would work in practice, but we also recognize the urgency of having some kind of legislative framework that would allow urgently needed assistance to be delivered in Afghanistan.

This reflects what the Afghan Canadian community and development stakeholders are looking for. Sadly, we are a little behind the eight ball in Canada. Many other countries have been able to move much more quickly in responding to this situation.

I agree with the parliamentary secretary that the legislative process has worked. We were able to make substantial, meaningful improvements to the bill at committee through lots of discussion and painstaking compromise.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could speak a little more to the provisions around organizations asking the government if they need to apply. This is something that we added through an amendment, addressing the fact that there may be some cases where there is ambiguity about whether an organization needs to apply.

How does the parliamentary secretary anticipate that this regime would work, in terms of organizations asking if they need to apply? How long would the government response take in those cases?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for putting forward the amendment that puts the onus on the government and not the aid organizations to make that determination.

As the hon. member knows, the original bill required aid organizations to determine by themselves whether it was a geographic region, for example, that was under the control of terrorists. There were suggestions put forward that a list be created. However, these things change so quickly on the ground, and now, thanks to the hon. member's amendment, the onus is on the Minister of Public Safety to inform organizations. For example, if an organization is working in Nigeria and the area falls under the control of a terrorist group, the onus would be on the public safety minister to inform that organization.

I think that, because of the process we had at committee and the collaborative nature of our work with all parties, the bill would give aid organizations the certainty that they require. This will make it easier for them to be able to deliver development aid in those countries.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is too bad, but Bill C-41 is not the solution to such a vitally important issue. This bill was flawed from the start. The work should have been done by Global Affairs Canada, not Public Safety Canada.

The NDP cannot support a bill that says that the international solidarity sector must request the Canadian government's authorization to go save lives abroad. The premise of this bill, which involves getting the permission of a government, the Government of Canada, goes against the humanitarian principles of neutrality, independence and impartiality.

The NDP feels it is unacceptable to have a bill that could criminalize foreign aid in the Gaza Strip, for example. There is a risk that people who want to help and save lives could face criminal prosecution.

Why are the Liberals proposing a bill that could have those sorts of consequences?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the NDP will not be able to support this bill.

The bill was made through compromise. I feel that it would allow aid organizations to deliver the aid they need across the country. We listened to the New Democratic Party and included a humanitarian aid carve-out, which was not originally part of the bill. I think that is an example of listening, not just to the New Democratic Party but to organizations like Doctors Without Borders, which said that it was critical. I know that other organizations, such as the Red Cross and World Vision Canada, also wanted this humanitarian carve-out.

We listened, and unanimously, with all parties in the House, we adopted the NDP amendment that makes the important distinction that, under humanitarian law, aid organizations could deliver humanitarian aid, even in places like Afghanistan, without getting an authorization beforehand. The authorization regime would only apply to development assistance, and we feel that it reaches the proper balance and is a way for aid organizations to deliver aid to the most vulnerable in the world.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for speaking about this important topic. When we were on the Afghanistan committee together, we heard from many witnesses about the importance of this change and the impact it would have on the ground. I wonder whether the hon. parliamentary secretary can speak more to the impact this would have in Afghanistan.

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

Mr. Speaker, we did serve together on the special committee and heard about the need to urgently get this work done.

Right now, Canadian organizations, overall, are not able to deliver aid directly into Afghanistan. As I spoke about, there is a humanitarian crisis in that country. It is a country that was dependent on aid before the Taliban took over, and millions of people will die of starvation if we are not able to get in and deliver aid. Therefore, I do believe this would have a positive impact on the ability of our organizations from Canada to deliver aid in Afghanistan and that it would save lives.

I do not think Canadians recognize the humanitarian crisis that is happening in Afghanistan right now. I wish they did. I wish more Canadians were paying attention. This would allow the amazing Canadian aid organizations we have in this country to deliver the aid they want to deliver in Afghanistan.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am torn about Bill C-41, only to the extent that I understand why some of my NDP colleagues will be voting against it. I will be voting for it. It is urgent that Canada provide the cover for massively needed humanitarian aid and assistance.

This is an aspect of what the government claims is a feminist foreign policy. The government in Afghanistan has declared war on its women, and we are not doing enough. I ask my hon. colleague to share with us, if she will, because she is such a strong feminist, what else she thinks we ought to be doing to protect the women and girls in Afghanistan and why we have not gotten the women who were former members of Parliament out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, what is happening to women and girls in Afghanistan is horrific. It is almost indescribable the way women and girls are being targeted by the Taliban: not being able to leave their homes, being married off, and not having access to education and to employment. Some of these young women have spent their lives under a regime where they were allowed to do this. They were allowed to be members of Parliament, and it pains me to even say this aloud. No woman should have to be “allowed” to do anything. However, the fact is that now in Afghanistan, those aspirations of young women and women and girls in Afghanistan are gone.

There is much more we can be doing to support those women. There are incredible organizations, like Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan, that have not been able to deliver programs in the way that they would like to. I would also argue that Canadians need to pay attention to what is going on in Afghanistan and raise their voices in support of the women and girls living there under this oppressive regime.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House today concerning this important piece of legislation, Bill C-41, the trigger of which is the crisis in Afghanistan, but which, more broadly, seeks to establish a framework for allowing vitally needed short- and long-term development assistance to get into areas controlled by terrorist organizations.

I want to start my remarks today by speaking about the legislative process more generally, because I think the process we have been through on Bill C-41 has been quite effective and may be instructive for other kinds of engagements going forward. Our primary role as members of Parliament is to be legislators, and naturally we get drawn into a variety of other activities that are also important but are not as central. We are here to legislate. We are here to make law, understand laws that are before the House, debate them, propose changes to them, try to make them better and represent our constituents specifically in the law-making process.

The process that bills are supposed to go through is this: They are presented by the government as items for consideration without being perfect or approaching perfection at that point. Then they are debated in principle and members vote on the principle. Then they are analyzed in detail at committee. There should be meaningful consideration and back-and-forth discussions among parties, oriented toward making the bill as good as possible. Then we come back to the House for report stage and third reading.

Very often, sadly, bills are presented in a way that presumes they are in their final form, and the discussion in the House treats them as if the legislative process is a necessary evil instead of a vital process of refinement. Too often, there is pressure to push legislation forward as is and to accept it as a good bill, so we pass it instead of actually digging into the meat or substance of it. I think also that, too often, we see cases of legislation that does not have detail in it but, rather, provides an enabling framework for the government to simply do whatever it wants afterwards. All these cases involve a minimization of the important role legislators are supposed to play in the process of making good laws for our country.

I think, with respect to Bill C-41, though, the process worked very well. The government put forward a piece of legislation that was very flawed, and the need for the legislation was clear, based on advocacy from various stakeholder organizations, including, in particular, people from the Afghan Canadian community and from the development sector. Opposition parties had been asking for this. There were a number of motions at the foreign affairs committee calling for legislation that would allow humanitarian and longer-term development assistance to get into Afghanistan, so the advocacy that happened led to the government's putting forward legislation, though legislation that was flawed.

We debated it in principle, then we brought it to committee and had lengthy, painstaking and detailed negotiations among different parties. The conversations were multidimensional. They were all motivated by the sincere desire of everyone to make the bill better and recognized the urgency of resolving the challenge we have of the legal impediments to getting vitally needed humanitarian assistance into Afghanistan. Those conversations happened; they were constructive all the way along, and, as opposition members, we were very grateful as well for the hard work and involvement of our non-partisan public service.

I think there is an important interplay that happens, as well, between legislators and the public service, which is that we should not simply take or be expected to take as given the products we are given by the public servants; it is our job to challenge, question and say that we want them to come up with a different solution to problems. Public servants were responsive to those issues and questions, and we deferred to their expertise when there were technical concepts that needed to be understood.

I think there was very good interplay between the parties and between legislators and the public service, which led to substantial improvements in the bill.

My only complaint about the process is that, increasingly, we are seeing committee chairs make relatively narrow rulings about the scope of bills. I think that is a trend we should watch, because when the House endorses a bill in broad principle at second reading, committees need to have the space and the scope to be able to make amendments without too narrow an interpretation of the scope parameters. That said, we solved that problem by having a unanimous consent motion in the House to deem an amendment in scope that might not otherwise have been deemed in scope. We were thus able to achieve a workaround here, but, in general, I think this is just a point of caution for committee chairs and for those who are informing these decisions to think about: that we would risk getting to a point where the kinds of improvements to a bill that are required at committee cannot be made if the interpretations of scope are too narrow.

That said, I think this was a constructive process, and we have come back with a bill that is still not perfect but is substantially improved and substantially changed as a result of members of Parliament from all parties doing the work they are supposed to be doing in terms of engaging the legislative process. I enjoyed working with all my colleagues on the committee most of the time, I would say. I enjoyed working with all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, to paraphrase an old line. It was good to be able to work with members with whom I have substantial disagreements on other issues, but with whom, nonetheless, I shared a common framework for approaching the bill.

What would the bill do? The bill engages a complex area of law, which is anti-terrorism law, and seeks to create opportunities for exemption within our terrorist financing law that would allow organizations to deliver vitally needed development assistance to areas controlled by terrorist organizations, while seeking to minimize any kind of interaction with terrorist organizations. When we brought in Canada's terrorist financing regime, the principle, essentially, was that this was the most extreme sanction available for any organization, and that, when an organization is on the terrorist list, there should be absolutely no truck or trade whatsoever with this organization. This is a good principle to start from, but when terrorist organizations control territory, there may be instances where there need to be certain kinds of minimal engagement. If we do not have a nimble enough framework that allows that kind of minimal engagement, then the likely outcome is simply that fewer organizations would be listed as terrorist groups.

Our view is that we need to be able to list terrorist organizations as terrorist organizations and keep them on the terrorist list even if they control territory. It would be perverse to have terrorist organizations taken off the terrorist list simply because they became militarily successful. We need a framework that allows us to list and to maintain the listing of terrorist organizations even while they control territory, but also that allows organizations be able to provide assistance to people in those areas, a framework that allows certain kinds of minimal interactions, such as paying a bridge toll or using space in a building to deliver food aid. Naturally, these exceptions need to be quite limited, but they should exist. I have not heard anybody say that people who, through no fault of their own, happen to live in areas controlled by terrorists should be condemned to not receiving any kind of assistance or support.

I want to respond to an objection raised by an NDP member, because I think there is an important distinction to be made here. The NDP member who spoke a few minutes ago said that the bill would criminalize certain activity that might be undertaken by development organizations. The bill would not do that. The bill would create a potential for a general exemption in the case of humanitarian assistance, and a potential for an exemption through an authorization regime in the case of other development assistance. The bill would create an exception to existing criminal law; it would not create that criminal law.

Today, and as the law has existed for a long time, an organization that is seeking to do humanitarian assistance, but in the process gives money to a terrorist organization, could well run afoul of criminal law. Much could be said about that reality, but that is the existing legal reality. Today, Canadian development organizations in many cases have not been able to work in Afghanistan because of the existing criminal law that means that their risk calculation is that there is some risk of prosecution if they are engaged in Afghanistan, even if they minimize their interactions with the Taliban.

I think it is wrong to measure this bill against some abstract standard of perfection. What we should measure this bill against is the status quo that it improves upon. This bill does not criminalize anything. It creates exemptions and the possibility for exemptions to existing criminal law. As far as I understood the position that, for most of this debate, the NDP were articulating at committee, even they would or should regard this as an improvement on the status quo. It seems that they have now chosen to oppose a bill that does not improve enough on the status quo. I think it is fair to say that this bill, in certain respects, does not improve enough on the status quo but, from our perspective, it does not make sense to oppose a bill simply because it is not perfect, or simply because it does not go far enough in the desired directions.

We have to recognize that there are important complexities on the other side of this. Some amendments were proposed, for example, that would limit the definition of a terrorist group to only listed terrorist entities. That would be a substantial change to terrorist financing law and it would allow organizations that have, for instance, a terrorist purpose, but are not listed as terrorist entities, to be able to receive financing from Canada. Our approach was to try to strike an appropriate balance to protect the integrity of our anti-terrorism regime, to improve on the bill as much as we could, to provide greater predictability for humanitarian organizations, but also, recognizing how quickly we wanted to move on this bill, to not have kind of broad substantial changes to terrorist financing law that would have all kinds of other impacts outside of the area of development assistance.

I am proud of the role that Conservatives were able to play in those discussions. I think we took a reasonable approach that improved the bill and that will provide us with a framework that will facilitate the continuing listing of terrorist organizations even if they control territory, while also being able to be engaged constructively with the people of those areas.

I want to share just some of the amendments we supported or proposed at committee. We supported an amendment on providing a humanitarian exemption that has already been discussed during debate today. The previous version of the bill said that, in effect, any development activity would require authorization if it involved that kind of activity in terrorist-controlled areas. Now the bill says that for emergency humanitarian relief, an exemption is not required. There is a general exemption but for longer-term development assistance, likely in cases where there is actually time to make this application and consider it, that there is an authorization regime in place.

We put forward an amendment that would allow organizations to ask if they need to apply. There has been a lot of discussion, rightly, about the Afghan context, but there are many cases where it is much more ambiguous. There might be a group that could be considered a terrorist group but is not a listed terrorist entity, that partially controls sort of semi un-governed parts of the country, and then organizations have to make the judgment call of what kinds of interactions would be required and whether this organization is a terrorist group or not. We felt that it was not appropriate to put the onus on development organizations to make these kinds of calls. They should be able to ask the government to get feedback. This was an area in which there was a great deal of discussion. I think we came to a good compromise.

We also supported amendments around the protection of personal information and Conservatives put forward the amendment on moving up the review clauses. This reflects our belief that this legislation has problems. It is not perfect and needs work, but it also needs to pass. Having a one-year review will allow us to see how the government is doing in terms of implementation and how the regime is working.

I would like to speak more broadly to the situation in Afghanistan. I want to be clear that this bill is not in any way softening our denunciation of the Taliban. In fact, this bill and the accompanying conversation have reinforced our denunciation of the Taliban. In the absence of a bill like this, a government has to consider either maintaining a terrorist listing and, therefore, the associated restrictions on development assistance or lifting a terrorist listing with all the attendant problems with that.

This bill would allow us to maintain the listing of terrorist organizations that ought to continue to be listed as terrorist organizations. It would allow us to list other organizations, such as the IRGC or the Wagner Group, that have close relationships with government and may, in certain instances, be conceived of as controlling territory. It would allow us to list government-affiliated entities without fear of negatively impacting the flow of development assistance. This would, therefore, strengthen our ability to denounce and hold accountable terrorist organizations like the Taliban.

It is very important for this House to remain seized with the situation in Afghanistan. A humanitarian crisis is ongoing there, but there is also the fundamental crisis in human rights and recognition of universal human dignity that is not happening, needless to say, by the de facto authorities.

Canada has had a long-running commitment to Afghanistan. Over 150 Canadian soldiers died fighting for the freedom of that country. We need to honour the sacrifices of those Canadians, as well as Afghans and other allies who fought along with them, by continuing to work on the advancement of freedom and democracy in Afghanistan. There are ongoing efforts under way by the Afghan people in Afghanistan and in the diaspora to build up the necessary institutions in exile, to challenge the Taliban and to work toward the restoration of freedom and democracy.

The Afghan people want us to be firm in sanctioning the Taliban, in condemning its human rights abuses and also in looking for ways to support and engage with opposition groups across the spectrum, different types of opposition groups doing different kinds of things. We heard yesterday at the foreign affairs committee from one of those groups, speaking about the hope that, because of the Taliban's general ineffectiveness due to the problems, the Taliban could be on its way to a kind of structural collapse earlier than many people expected. We can hope for that collapse and the restoration of freedom and democracy in Afghanistan, and we should not give ourselves over to undue pessimism as it relates to Afghanistan. We need to continue to be engaged, thinking and proposing ideas for a brighter future for Afghanistan when this dark night is over.

Canada has been there in the past. The abandonment of Afghanistan in the recent chaotic pullout and the failure of the Canadian government to evacuate those who needed to be evacuated are sad points in terms of our engagement, but we need to work together as parliamentarians to build for a brighter future for Afghanistan.

I want to commit to all those listening in the Afghan community that it will continue to be a priority for me to think about and work on how Canada can honour its commitments to Afghanistan and continue to work with the Afghan diaspora, the people of Afghanistan, to address the immediate humanitarian crisis, but also to work for the restoration of freedom and democracy and the expansion of pluralism that includes ethnic and religious minorities. This is possible, this is realistic and we must continue that work going forward.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the member's beginning remarks when he was talking about the process. I found it somewhat interesting.

As the member recalls, in opposition when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, the quid pro quo was to not pass anything in committee if it came from opposition members. The Conservatives never accepted any amendments with a majority Harper government.

Today, we have seen better, healthier legislation, in good part because of the member's involvement in the committee with his suggestions. More and more we are seeing not only government member amendments being brought forward, but also opposition member amendments being brought forward, and, more importantly, they are even passed. It gives strength to the legislation.

I believe Canadians, at heart, are great humanitarians. Given the nature of the issue and the people, and, we are helping them to do the work they want to do to support the world in a positive way.

I would like his comments on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is quite correct that the Conservatives, when in government, never accepted opposition party amendments.

It was very good to be able to work constructively with members of all parties, including the governing party. Of course, the context we have right now is a minority Parliament. There was the opportunity for the opposition to come together and make changes to the bill, which the government did not like. Ultimately, we were able to work collaboratively with the government.

I think that collaboration was also born out of the realities of a minority Parliament. We have tried to use the tools we have to work constructively to make this bill better and to bring in the kinds of changes that have delivered the improvements that will hopefully make the regime work better.

In any event, we have the one-year review clause that we proposed that ensures that, given the potential problems, we are going to have an opportunity to look at this issue again very soon.

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

Mr. Speaker, all four parties in the House have worked extremely hard on this bill. We reached a compromise, although not to everyone's satisfaction, of course. As I said earlier, politics is the art of compromise.

A question that I consider of the utmost importance has been on my mind. On February 7, 2022, I asked an initial question in committee about the issue before us today concerning this bill. On February 17, 2022, I tabled a unanimous consent motion in the House, but the Liberals blocked it. We could have resolved the issue a lot faster.

Why did the government take all this time to introduce a bill that is still flawed, even though we have known about the problem for the past 20 months? This is the question on my mind, and I would like my colleague to answer it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with the points the member made about the timing. This has been raised multiple times by multiple committees. I think there were two different motions adopted at the foreign affairs committee. Prior to that, there was a recommendation in the report from the Special Committee on Afghanistan.

If we had been on top of it timing-wise, we would probably already be at that one-year review stage looking back saying that we passed the bill a year ago and seeing how it is working. However, we are not there. It is fair to point out again that it was on the day that Kabul was falling that the Prime Minister's priority was to call an election instead of being at his desk working on these important issues.

I do not want to take away from the spirit of collaboration that exists around this bill by acknowledging those realities, but those are realities. It would have been much better for the people of Afghanistan, and for these Canadian organizations, if we had moved faster on this legislation.

We are behind our allies. We are behind where the needs are. It is better late than never. Let us get this done and see how it works.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. He has a very long riding name but I remember it. I remember it because I know the member spoke a lot about process. I know the member is famous for filibustering in committee.

One example is when the member for Edmonton Strathcona put forward a study to look at women's reproductive rights globally. The member obstructed that study by trying to filibuster it. We know that abortion rights are human rights.

Does the hon. member agree that abortion rights are human rights, as stated under international law?

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

Mr. Speaker, I regret to advise the member that she has not kept up on the unfolding of events at the foreign affairs committee at all. We had a dispute at the committee about aspects of the committee's agenda. Our view was that the committee should prioritize work on the ongoing invasion of Ukraine and other studies the committee had already agreed to. Nonetheless, despite that dispute, we eventually came to a conclusion, an understanding.

The study that I think the member is referring to was a priority of the Liberals and the NDP. They wanted to do a study on abortion at the foreign affairs committee. Notwithstanding the various other things that are going on in the world right now, that was their priority and that study has since occurred. The hearings are complete, and I think the House will be hearing back with the conclusions of that study.

I will not pre-empt any of that, but if the member had kept up with the workings of the foreign affairs committee, she would know that the events she is alleging are ongoing are no longer ongoing. The House will have the opportunity to look at the conclusions of the foreign affairs committee.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in voting for this bill, would the hon. member also put forward any ideas he has for what we should be doing to protect the lives of women and girls in Afghanistan?

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

Mr. Speaker, at the same time as the committee adopted this bill, we adopted a motion that my Conservative colleague had put forward, which was a clear denunciation of the Taliban. It included identifying the system of gender discrimination it has built and is building and called for the continued listing of the Taliban as a terrorist organization.

It is very important that we work closely with women's groups from Afghanistan and with Afghan diaspora groups in general to understand what they are looking for. I think what they are looking for is for us to continue to be tough on the Taliban by condemning what it is doing, sanctioning it, etc. They also want us to look for ways to support civil society opposition groups and to remain hopeful about what the future of Afghanistan could look like so that we can see a post-Taliban future sooner rather than later.

Ukraine International Airlines Flight PS752

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on July 11, this Sunday, a rally will be held on Parliament Hill by 2,000 Iranian Canadians to again protest the failure of the Canadian government to get justice from Iran for the January 8, 2020, shooting down of flight PS752. That horrific act murdered 176 people, 55 of whom were Canadian citizens and 30 of whom were permanent residents. One of those victims was a friend.

Sunday's rally will also demand that the Canadian government abandon its ongoing reluctance to list the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization, and demand that the government finally take action against Iranian operatives who are harassing and intimidating the Iranian community in Canada.

From Parliament Hill to Toronto City Hall and Richmond Hill, I have stood in solidarity with Canada's Iranian community. Will the government? To date, the protesters have received useless platitudes and empty promises. Hopefully the government's indifference will soon end.

Police Boys and Girls Club

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in the early 1970s, the former town of Dominion police service established the Police Boys and Girls Club, an organization to support and engage youth in the local community. Fifty years later, I am proud to say that this club and its initiatives are going strong. With that, it is my sincere pleasure to congratulate the Police Boys and Girls Club on its 50th anniversary.

Today, the club provides activities for nearly 125 youth in the Dominion area. That is an incredible feat that certainly maintains its impact on our communities. Our youth are our future, and organizations such as the Police Boys and Girls Club reassure me and should reassure everyone in this House that the future is very, very bright.

I thank all community volunteers, past and present, who have devoted their time over the course of 50 years.