Debates of June 9th, 2023

Criminal Code

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

Before we go to questions and comments, I would like to remind the hon. member that he cannot be disrespectful towards the chair, even sarcastically.

The member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is correct that we worked very well together on this legislation. I will be speaking to it directly after him.

As he mentioned, I have worked in this sector for over two decades, and one of the main concerns I have with this bill is that, in effect, it criminalizes international development work. Instead of saying that we will tell organizations when we do not want them to work in a certain area or when they need an exemption in a certain area, they have to assume they are committing a crime and check in.

This is the criminalization of international development and of the very Canadian organizations that are flying our flags around the world and doing what needs to be done in the most dangerous, difficult circumstances. We are now criminalizing them. I wonder if he could talk a bit about how difficult that makes things for organizations.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. That is one of the consequences of this bill. I mentioned it and I believe that she, too, understood my point. We have no choice but to pass it now. It is better to have NGOs on the ground than to have no one. At present, people cannot go work in Afghanistan because they would be in violation of the Criminal Code. That will be the case until we pass this bill.

It truly is a ridiculous state of affairs. It was worse in the beginning, at first reading of Bill C‑41. Clearly, there was mistrust of NGOs, as though they were fundamentally doing something wrong and it was up to them to prove otherwise, whereas we should be reversing the burden of proof.

I agree with my colleague, 100%. As I said, everyone tried to come to a compromise for this bill. That is what has happened. Admittedly, it is far from perfect. However, people are suffering in Afghanistan right now, and we absolutely must vote in favour of this bill, even if it means tabling a new bill to improve it when Parliament resumes in the fall. In the meantime, a number of NGOs in the sector are asking us to pass the bill. Then we will see if we can amend or improve it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the member's efforts and thoughts in regard to the whole committee process. It is quite encouraging when members from different political sides come together to give strength to legislation. I understand there was a high sense of co-operation.

I looked this up just to make sure that I had the riding right. Oakville North—Burlington is the riding of the member he is referring to. Knowing her personality, I am sure she would have greatly appreciated the sense of co-operation coming from the member representing the Bloc.

Would my hon. colleague not acknowledge that, as a result of that high sense of co-operation, something done in an apolitical fashion, to a certain degree we now have stronger, healthier legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times, there was a lot of co-operation and mutual support on this bill. Not everyone is happy with the final product, but it is what it is.

I think that the way that we worked and the process that we followed to get to where we are today can serve as a model. The Conservatives, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the government all worked on this bill.

The next person who is going to speak, the member for Edmonton Strathcona, is going to be a bit more critical in her speech. I support those criticisms. However, as I said earlier, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill because the situation is urgent. Something should have been done long a long time ago.

Throughout the process, I saw evidence of the fact that it is possible to work with some government members to make legislative changes. However, that is not always the case. I would like all the other government members to look at what the member for Oakville North—Burlington did and follow her example. If everyone were like her, then things would go a lot better in this Parliament.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech and his hard work. International humanitarian aid represents 0.3% of Canada's GDP, despite the government's commitment to increasing that figure to 0.7% of GDP. This bill could have been passed long ago, because lives that depend on it.

My questions for my colleague are the following. Does this not give the impression that, in international matters, Canada is always lagging a bit behind, as though this were not a priority? I do not want to say this is done consciously or voluntarily, but perhaps out of negligence. Should there not be more pressure to make international aid for those who need more a priority again in the future, whether through legislation or financial support?

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

In 2015, Justin Trudeau said, “Canada is back”. Even the NDP—

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

The member for Lac-Saint-Jean knows full well that he cannot name sitting members of the House and that he needs to refer to them by their title.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is what the Prime Minister said. People from everywhere, from all political backgrounds, believed him when he said that infamous phrase in 2015. However, the Liberal government spends less on international development than the Harper government did. Canada has never spent so little on international aid. There were even cuts to international aid funding in the last budget.

The UN has asked us to invest 0.7% of our GDP in development assistance. Canada is currently investing 0.3%. We are not even close to the OECD average, which is around 0.42%.

I am a Quebec sovereignist, and I would argue that Canada is not a military power or an economic power, but it has shown leadership in the area of human rights in the past. Lester B. Pearson comes to mind, with his contribution to peacekeeping. On the Conservative side, Brian Mulroney led the battle against the apartheid regime. Canada has quite a human rights history.

When the Prime Minister came to power, he told us that everything would change compared to the previous government. However, things got worse. This Prime Minister is all about image and never about action, especially when it comes to international development, human rights, or funding for international projects that help vulnerable and underprivileged people who live in fear of losing their family, their life and their friends. The Prime Minister should look in the mirror. I know he does it a lot, but he should look himself in the eyes rather than looking at how he is dressed before leaving for work.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I tend to disagree with the member's comments regarding the Prime Minister. In many ways, Canada is back. We see it, whether through international trade agreements or the demand for the Prime Minister to go outside of Canada, which is fairly high, especially if we compare it to former prime minister Stephen Harper. In many ways, Canada continues to contribute, working through the United Nations, working with our allied forces, doing things to support the Five Eyes countries and doing so much more.

On the legislation, I think the legislation is good, and after its passage, we are going to see more people helping more people in need. I see that as a good thing. Would he not agree?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think they are confused. It is not “Canada is back”; it is more like “Canada is at the back”. I am not sure if I can say it like that. The Liberals are at the back. They have not moved forward; they have fallen back.

That is pretty much the only answer I could give my friend. Flying in private jets to attend the coronation of the King of England is not exactly doing international work. That is not how it works. I understand that, during his first term, the Prime Minister had fun dressing up in different ways in different countries, but that is not how you promote change internationally.

I apologize in advance, but I must say that this Prime Minister has not done his job on the international stage, whether we are talking about international relations, funding, or recognizing human rights abuses. Just think of the Uyghur issue. It took forever before he even thought to acknowledge the genocide. The Prime Minister did not even acknowledge it himself; it was the House of Commons that had to do it for him.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we hear from the Liberals that they think they are back. I was not a member of Parliament or a politician in 2015 when the Prime Minister stood up and said that Canada was back. He tapped his chest and did that little thing he does when he is trying to make people think he really means it.

We all thought he did. The Prime Minister said all of the right words, all the right things that we wanted to hear. He said that Canada was back. We were going to be back on the world stage, and we were going to back with peacekeepers. He promised over 600 peacekeepers. He told us we were going to be back on international development and diplomacy, that we were going to be in those conversations.

No one is more disappointed that that never happened than I am. We went through the Harper decade. I was with civil society groups that were working on foreign affairs, international development and sustainable development in the Harper years. I saw what happened under the Harper decade.

We were so looking forward to a shining example of what this country could be. Unfortunately, eight years in, the Liberals have failed to deliver that for us. We have a 15% cut to international development assistance in the budget at a time when we know the world needs Canada to step up more than ever. We have 60 peacekeepers in the field when the government promised 600. We have failures on our diplomatic fronts. Every decision the Liberal government makes puts trade ahead of human rights, ahead of people and ahead of women, every single decision.

However, that is not why I am here today. I just could not let it pass, to have the government tell us parliamentarians that Canada is back. Canada is not back.

We are here to talk about Bill C-41. I will repeat what I just mentioned. I have worked in international development, foreign affairs and sustainable development around the world. I did it for my entire career prior to being a politician, in countries all throughout the world. I have represented organizations. I have done an awful lot of this work.

It is very important work. I sometimes think that, in the House of Commons, we forget that. We forget that our foreign policy is a stool. That stool requires trade, one hundred per cent, and it requires diplomatic relationships with other countries. It also requires development, and we know what happens when we step back from that piece of the stool.

What we are talking about today is basically a humanitarian carve-out so that we would be able to get urgent help to people in Afghanistan, except that is not what this bill is. That is not how legislation works. This would impact the international development and humanitarian sectors for decades because it is law. It is not contextual for the Afghan crisis. I will say, I have stood in the House time and time again demanding that the government do more for the people of Afghanistan. My heart breaks for the women and girls in Afghanistan who cannot go to school, who cannot leave their homes, whose lives are in danger.

The worst day I have had as a parliamentarian was finding out that one of their members of Parliament was murdered because we did not get her out fast enough. What is happening in Afghanistan is horrendous, and we need to do what we can, but this bill is going to have implications longer than just what is happening in Afghanistan. This would have implications around the world, and I do not think the people in the House are treating it with the severity that they need to.

It has been over two years since I asked the government to work with civil society, the non-profit sector and experts in the field to come up with a plan. It has been over two years. It was in May 2021. In February 2021, I wrote to then minister Garneau and said that this is what is going to happen. The U.S. has indicated that they are leaving, and this is what is going to happen. What is the plan?

There was never a plan put in place. There was never a plan to help those people who had worked so hard for Canadians. There was never a plan put in place to make sure that Canadian organizations doing the incredible work on the ground were able to work in Afghanistan.

For two years, we have been asking for this legislation. We asked for the government to work with the sector. I understand that none of us in this place are experts in everything. We cannot be. We have to depend on experts. We have to depend on experts to give us the best advice, but the government did not get the best advice.

The sector clearly asked for a humanitarian carve-out. What it got, in the first iteration of Bill C-41, was a messy, overly bureaucratic, overly complicated criminalization of humanitarian aid and international development. It got a bill that was created by three ministries. Do members know who led that? The Minister of Public Safety. I am sorry, but the Minister of Public Safety does not work in international development.

I do not know where the Minister of International Development was or why he was not part of these conversations. I do not know why we did not hear enough from Global Affairs Canada, but we did not. That is the reality. Therefore, we had a messy and broken piece of legislation come forward because the government refused to listen to the experts. The experts knew what was needed and what would make the lives of those in the sector easier so they could go into Afghanistan and provide life-saving aid and support to its people.

I want to take a moment here because I agree with my colleague from the Bloc, the member of Parliament for Lac-Saint-Jean. I worked very well with him. I also want to give a shout-out to the member for Oakville North—Burlington because she was basically given a terrible piece of legislation and told to shine it. When I say a terrible piece of legislation, I think members know exactly what I think of it.

She was told to make it better, so instead of bringing us a law that we could improve slightly, she brought us a dumpster fire that we then had to try to do what we could with, so I want to give her a shout-out. She worked very hard, very collaboratively and very well with me. I worked very well with the member for Lac-Saint-Jean. We all, every one of us, wanted to make sure this bill got help to people in Afghanistan as fast as it could.

When the Minister of Public Safety came to committee, he talked to us about balance. He said that we have to have a balance between protecting against terrorist and protecting international development groups. What I said to him then, and I will say to every member in the House right now, is that the balance is wrong. He got the balance wrong. The balance we have right now criminalizes international development organizations. It is only because we were able to get an NDP amendment through for a carve-out that humanitarian organizations are not in there.

The folks who work within public safety do great work, but they do not understand international human rights law. They do not understand international development rights. They just do not have that line. Therefore, we worked with other parties to try to get this fixed because one of the key things, and I think perhaps something that members do not understand, is ensuring that organizations can maintain their neutrality. It is vital. It is a cornerstone of humanitarian and international development work because we are asking these organizations to go into sectors, regions and areas that are under fire and are very dangerous.

We are asking them to go into some of the worst places on the planet, and often those places are rife with conflict. There are often groups working there who are bad actors, and terrorists who are doing terrible things, so the only way organizations can do that work is if they are seen as neutral, independent and impartial. This legislation makes organizations go to the government to get permission to work in certain areas, which takes away their ability to be impartial and independent.

I raised this when the Minister of International Development was first appointed. As members know, he is the former minister of defence. No offence to the minister, but that was a terrible idea because we spend our entire careers trying to ensure that folks understand we are not the military and we are not the government. We are independent. We are here to help. We are here to provide life-saving supports. That is what the sector does, what it tries to do.

When we put in a minister who is a former minister of defence, how does that look? It endangers the organizations working on the ground. It is an indication that the government does not understand, that it does not care and that it does not get it.

We did vote for the bill to go to committee, because, as I said, we all wanted to make sure that this aid got out to the people in Afghanistan who needed it. When the bill came to committee, we brought forward 12 amendments, and all of those amendments came from the sector. However, only six of those amendments were adopted.

As I mentioned, the key amendment for us was making sure that the humanitarian exemption was finally agreed to by the other parties. It was ruled out of scope, but we were able to bring it forward within the House. However, that was only one fix. That was only one of the things we wanted to ensure were fixed that the sector had asked us to fix.

One of the other things was a list. In this legislation, the government refuses to tell organizations which regions, which areas, they would need to ask for an exemption for, which puts all the onus on the organization. When we stand in this very sterile environment, it seems to make sense that an organization that is going to work in Sudan should ask if Sudan is one of the countries it would need an exemption for. However, that is not how international development works. Some of the Canadian organizations that I have worked with have 40-year relationships in some of the countries they work in. Change for Children in my riding has a 40-year relationship working in Nicaragua, and I can tell members that what is happening in Nicaragua has changed over 40 years.

We are not just asking organizations to check whether or not they can get into a country and do work. We are asking them to check, almost daily, to see if anything has changed, and the world changes. It is not the House of Commons where these organizations are working. They are working in mayhem. They are working in places that are in crisis. They are working in places that are in conflict. It is absurd to ask them to do that, to put that onus on them, because the government does not want to prepare a list of countries, and it is a list that it has to have. If the government does not have a list, it is almost negligence. However, to not be able to share that list with the organizations is shocking to me. It is absurd.

Another thing, which we tried to fix, is that in the legislation there is the term “links to a terrorist group”, which is not defined anywhere. There is nothing in this legislation that would define “links to a terrorist group”. What does that mean? Does it mean a person who rode on the same bus as someone, or who is talking to someone whose sister-in-law is implicated? Nobody knows what it means. It has no legal definition. In fact, I will read from the brief from the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, which said:

This is much too discretionary; for example, would distant family ties, former work or school associates, or membership in the same religious community or congregation be considered links? In our work, we have seen how each of these types of “links” have been identified by security agencies as being grounds for suspicion based solely on guilt by association. The example of Afghanistan, a Muslim majority country, is apt in this assistance, as we have particularly observed how Muslims in Canada are subject to this exact kind of guilt by association, leading to increased surveillance, loss of security clearances and employment [and] even includes the sharing of information which has led to rendition, arbitrary detention and torture

This is not good legislation when we have organizations like this one telling us that this does not make sense and that it is not clear.

The other piece I have with this legislation is that, right now, I have been told by the government that it is going to put policies in place to make sure that this all works just fine. However, the problem with policies are that other governments can come forward, and other governments can use the legislation differently. I have a very deep concern that, if we were to get a Conservative government, Conservatives could weaponize international development, and I will tell members why I think that is a concern. It is because they have done it before.

I was in the sector when the Harper government weaponized and refused funding to Oxfam. I was in the sector when the government weaponized it when Bev Oda wrote the infamous “not” on the application for funding so that Kairos, who had been critical of the government, could not get funding. The Conservative government has done this before. They could do it again, and there is no protection in this legislation to make sure that does not happen.

What happens if, all of a sudden, organizations are not allowed to work in Gaza? What happens if, all of a sudden, the government decides to delay providing the exemption? Right now, there are three ministries involved: public safety, justice and international development. I have spent most of my career trying to get funding through Global Affairs Canada and I can tell everyone that it is almost never able to deliver on the timelines it puts forward, through no fault of its own. Some of the best, most devoted public servants in our country are at Global Affairs Canada, but they are under-resourced, understaffed and under-empowered to make the decisions.

Let us add in two more ministries and see how that goes, and let us think about that in context as well. A humanitarian crisis is an emergency. That means that things have to happen in hours, not days. Action has to be taken to save lives in hours. We heard from one of the witnesses that they think they would be able to get a decision back to organizations well within six months. Within six months, people are dying. People need the support, they are dying and hours make all the difference, but we are being told months, and that is from a government that has not been able to deliver on its promises to date. I am deeply concerned about that.

There is another thing I want to bring up very quickly. One of the amendments we were able to get through and that I am very happy about is that there will be a one-year review, so we will be reviewing this legislation in one year. It is part of the reason I think it is very important for the House to look at this seriously and keeps a very close eye on it.

I cannot support this legislation. This legislation goes against all of the principles of international development and international humanitarian law. It does not listen to the sector and to the supports that the sector has asked for.

There is one other thing. We are also the only country in this situation. The U.S. has a humanitarian exemption. The U.K., the EU and other countries were able to do what the Liberal government could not do. They were able to do what the government, with the support of every party in this House, was unable to manage to get done.

I know the bill will pass. It will not pass with my support. I do not believe that this legislation is worthy of being passed. The fact that other parties are voting for it indicates that they have a smaller understanding of international development and humanitarian law. I am glad that the help will get to the people of Afghanistan as soon as possible. I am appalled that it has taken us two years to get to this point, but the international development sector offering people in crisis around the world crumbs and telling them they have to take it because that is all there is on offer is un-Canadian.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I do have many concerns about this legislation, although I do think the member gilds the lily a bit.

The irony, in relation to her comments, is that the development sector has overwhelmingly said that it would like us to pass this bill, though it has also been critical of various aspects of it. I know the member worked in the sector previously, but I do not think she knows more than all of the stakeholders that represent the sector. I would challenge her to provide the House with one or a couple of quotations from individuals who actually want us to vote against the bill. There is going to be a lot of information out there of people saying things that are critical about the bill, but can she name one development organization that is standing up and saying we should oppose this bill?

The other irony I will point out is that, despite the member's sharp criticisms of the government, she is a member of a party that continues to give confidence and supply to the government. The Conservatives and the Bloc, though we have voted against the government on key confidence and supply issues, have sought to work collaboratively with the government to find compromises, recognizing that one cannot always get 100% of one's way here.

I have two questions for the member. First, can the member name any stakeholder that agrees with the NDP position of opposing the bill at third reading? Second, if these issues are so fundamental, why does her party uniquely continue to provide the government with confidence and supply?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell members a little bit about our foreign affairs committee. It is an interesting committee. Of course we have people from all parties. It is probably one of the most important committees that we have in the House of Commons, particularly considering the war in Ukraine, what we see happening in Afghanistan and Sudan; conflicts that we have around the world that Canada could play a uniquely important role in.

One of the things that I am quite proud of is that at committee we represent the policies that are brought forward by the government or we test them to see if they are being upheld. I was part of the sector when the feminist international assistance policy was brought forward, something that I am very proud of. Of course, I would like to urge the government to do more to make sure that we are actually implementing that policy.

One of the things that came forward in this last recent session is that we were able to look at the sexual and reproductive rights for women around the world. This happened after a lot of delay by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan because he was filibustering. He had some religious objections. He tries to impose his will on our committee on quite a regular basis, to the detriment of the work that we need to get done for places around the world. Realistically, I am happy that we were able to get that study done after his filibuster. He tried to filibuster a study I brought forward where I talked about the idea of peaceful things Canada could do to make peace more likely in the Middle East.

Frankly, I am not really interested in answering his questions.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her speech. Her passion and commitment on this issue are very clear. I would like to better understand her position. I understand that this bill is not really perfect. My colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean said that it was a compromise.

I understood from the member's speech that the bill's approach goes completely against the spirit of international development. However, there is a crisis in Afghanistan and the NGOs are asking us to support this bill, for lack of a better option. I understood that the member's party will be voting against the bill for the reasons she gave.

Does she think it would be better to implement this bill or to have nothing at all?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is the difficult challenge that we found this sector in. This is in fact exactly where we are at, with millions of people who are dying and millions of people who are at risk. There are also principles of humanitarian development and humanitarian aid that are core principles under which we need to do this work and this bill pits those two things against each other. That is the problem. This bill actually is offering, like I said, crumbs to the sector in saying they are not going to get what they want or what they need, the people of Afghanistan are not going to get what they want or what they need, but here is something. They either have to take this or they have to wait another two years for anything, if anything ever comes forward.

It is not really a fair choice to give to the sector. It is not really a fair choice to give to any of us in this place to give us such flawed legislation, knowing that people's lives are on the line and we either have to choose to support a terrible bill being brought forward by the government or let people die. It is an impossible choice and the implications are that down the road this could have impacts on other populations. This could mean other people could die because of the criminalization of development.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her impassioned speech but, more importantly, for the work that she has done and for the work that she continues to do to advocate for those less fortunate around the world.

Perhaps I do not have as much experience as my colleague, but I have had the privilege of working with NGOs that are doing a tremendous amount of work in Afghanistan. I am always reminded that one of the most important principles of humanitarian aid is humanity and making sure we take care of the most vulnerable.

Now, this legislation may not be perfect. It may not be what everybody wanted in its purest form, but would it not make sense for us to send a united message that at a minimum we are all united in trying to alleviate the suffering of those in Afghanistan and allowing those NGOs that need to be doing this important work to be able to do that work? Recognizing that there are always areas of improvement, would it not send a message to the Taliban and to others that we are not going to stand in the way as a Parliament of working together to achieve these goals?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this comment goes back to what I was saying before. As much as I think all of us in this place want to get aid to the people of Afghanistan as fast as possible, and I honestly believe that all of us in this place want that, the difficulty of being a lawmaker is that we have to look at the long-term implications of the laws we put forward. What happens if this means there are women and girls in other countries who do not get the support they need because we put legislation in place and because another government chooses to weaponize it? It is a real concern.

I appreciate the work the member has done in Afghanistan. I want to give a huge shout-out to an organization, Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan, which continues to do everything it can to help women and girls in Afghanistan at a time of great personal risk. One thing we should all continue to think about as we think about Bill C-41 is that the organizations that represent Canada around the world, the CSOs and NGOs, the organizations doing this important work, are heroes. They really do need to be acknowledged in this place.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's passion and her years of experience, and I certainly hope the people in this place are listening.

I spent many years of my life working in a non-profit organization to support newcomers coming to Canada. One of the things I found very liberating about the work we did is that we were able to get on the ground quickly and respond to issues as they arose. Being funded by different levels of government, they were often slow and not able to do that work, so our work was precious.

When I heard her speech, I could see very clearly that it is the same thing. Not having the links to terrorism defined really prevents them from being able to do their work effectively. When we have them figuring out where they can and cannot go, it keeps adding burdens, and every burden we add means that lives cannot be saved.

I am wondering if the member can talk about how quickly these civil society organizations can move and what the barriers are when government adds these extra duties.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from British Columbia is absolutely right. She really could not be more correct about these burdens added to organizations that are already underfunded. Remember, these are organizations facing a 15% cut in official international development assistance. These are the same organizations that have lived through decades of neglect, starting with Stephen Harper and continuing with the current government. These are organizations for which core funding was stopped, so they did not have the capacity to maintain staff and maintain the work. Every burden we add to that, every single thing we add to those organizations, means it is harder for them to do the work they need to do in the field. It is so much more difficult.

I want to add, and I said it in my speech but I will say it again, that it is difficult for any non-profit organization to work with a single federal ministry, but to have to work with three is absurd.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise and speak on Bill C-41. First, I want to begin by thanking all of my colleagues from all parties who have been working hard at this, particularly my colleague from Oakville North—Burlington, who has really made this, in many ways, an important part of all of the work that she has done in Parliament.

I think we should be very proud that we are at this point. One of the first things that was said to me, when I got elected, by an NGO that is doing work in Afghanistan right now is that we need to find a way to unlock this problem for the people of Afghanistan, for women and girls and for the organizations that are trying their best to work under extremely difficult circumstances.

Canadian NGOs have been at the front line of many of the most complicated challenges, the most complicated problems and the most difficult situations and circumstances in Afghanistan. They have been the ones that have been prepared to go to places where many other organizations have not wanted to go. They have been the ones that have been trying to support work in the most complex of circumstances.

Our ability to flow funds, our ability for organizations to do work in those areas and our ability for NGOs to be able to do the work that is required of them is really a matter of life and death. We have heard this throughout this debate. We have heard this throughout all of the speeches that at the forefront of our thinking, the forefront of our concern has to be the most vulnerable in Afghanistan and in other countries where this will apply but, in particular, we have been talking a lot about Afghanistan.

Two-thirds of the country now needs foreign aid to develop and to survive. People have literally had to make life-or-death decisions about whether they keep their children or sell them in order to be able to feed their families. The question of education is one that people would love to be able to even think about, but they are too busy trying to figure out if they are going to be able to eat.

We are at a place now where Bill C-41 finally does what so many have been calling for for so long. We have heard different points of view on whether this is the best route or the perfect route.

As we have learned, there is no perfect bill, but we are in a place now where we have the opportunity, as a Parliament, to tell the world that Canada is not only going to be there, that we are not only going to continue the work that we have historically done, but we are now going to make it possible for these NGOs to do the work that, in many ways, was made impossible not by design but by circumstance.

The fact that the Taliban took the decision to enforce legislation governing taxation of NGOs put so many people at risk of criminal liability. What this meant was that organization upon organization had to make the difficult decision of how they were going to engage, whether they were going to take the risks that involved.

This has led to an unprecedented economic humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. We are talking about 20 million people at risk.

Being able to pass this bill, making sure that we come together to get this over the finish line, to send a clear message that Canadian NGOs will be able to do the important work that they need to do, is something that I think we should all be proud of and that we should all do together.

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

It being 1:25 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 8, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of third reading of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

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

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Monday, June 12, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it 1:30 p.m., so we can begin private members' hour.