44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 27, 2023 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, I think what we will hear is that there was a desire to balance the needs of security versus the needs of humanitarian organizations. It is my thought, though, that this balance is completely wrong in this case. That is proven out by what we saw from the United Nations Security Council and what we saw from the U.S., the EU, the U.K., Australia and other countries that were able to do that.
From my perspective, I feel like government members, in fact, were not open to listening to the sector. They were not open to listening to experts. I have already sent a list of my concerns to one of the ministers responsible, and I got back a comment that said, “Thanks for your advocacy.” I sent 15 questions and I got a thanks for my advocacy.
I do have to say that they are not listening to us. They are not listening to Afghans. They are not listening to experts. This should be an easy thing to do. There is support from every party. There is massive support across Canada from Canadians.
I know this is not really an answer for the member, but I do hope it gives some clarity.
209 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think the member is not recognizing some of the realities of the situation. We have seen dramatic increases in the number of refugees. When we factor in Ukraine, Afghanistan and other countries around the world, I believe it is fairly accurate that Canada is definitely, per capita, the best in the world on the refugee front. Even in hard numbers, not on per capita basis, we are doing exceptionally well.
Even the member from the opposition commented on the technicalities and the legal complications of the legislation. It is not like one can just bring a bunch of legal people to the table and say, poof, let us have the legislation. There is a process, yes, but the member is trying to give the impression that the government has not been active on the file. I would suggest that she just needs to look at the number of refugees and look at the increases in aid support, overall, that the Canadian government has been putting forward.
169 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have a couple of things to say.
First of all, my colleague referred to Ukrainian refugees, but I am not sure if he perhaps failed to understand that the government does not list them as refugees, so they are not given the protection that refugees should have in our community.
The other thing he talked about is Afghan refugees. I have to tell him that I was in my office during the last constituency week talking to interpreters who have had their families and co-workers left behind by this government. I have talked to interpreters who supported our military, who supported our country, who have been left behind.
Yes, absolutely, I will say that we have been able to bring many people here from Afghanistan and from Ukraine, but I will not say that we have done a good job of it, that we have not left behind people to whom we had deep obligations. That is not anything to do with Bill C-41, which is an entirely different thing.
If we are not going to bring people out of their country so they can survive a genocidal terrorist regime in their own country, I do have to tell the member that humanitarian aid is the support we can give them.
216 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this is very difficult, because we did want this legislation. We wanted to see the carve-out for humanitarian help.
My question for the member is very specific. I am looking at the way the legislation is drafted and imagining that we vote for it to get to committee to think about how we might be able to improve it at committee. I am not sure we will be able to, so my question for her is this. Has she or her caucus been able to figure out if there are fixes to this change to the Criminal Code that will actually work for what we need?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this is the ultimate challenge we are facing. People are dying, and this legislation would help some organizations get there and provide some assistance at some point.
It has taken 18 months to get this flawed piece of legislation, so we have put the international development and humanitarian sector in this terrible position of deciding whether to take flawed legislation that could have wide implications or vote against the legislation, knowing it is almost guaranteed that we will not see any other legislation. Do we take the bad or the worse? That is not a position any of us want to be in.
We have many recommendations we are going to be bringing forward. I moved a motion in this place to move the bill to committee so we could start that important work. Something needs to be done as quickly as possible. I hope the government will accept our amendments. We have already started drafting those amendments. Hopefully, we can make this bill into something that will help and do less harm.
175 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I agree with many of the things the member has said about how the process this bill creates seems much more red tape-intensive than it needs to be. I look forward to seeing the amendments the NDP and others are going to propose.
I know there are sometimes limitations with respect to scope, so I have a specific question for the hon. member. Does she think the changes that we need to make to this bill are within the scope of the bill as it is currently written, or would we need a new piece of legislation to address the problems?
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would say that this is very similar to the last question I just answered.
I am open to working with all parties to see if there is a way to improve this legislation. The scope will be something we will have to certainly press toward the very edges of. Again, it is a situation that the government could fix very quickly by bringing forward better legislation.
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Edmonton Strathcona for her excellent speech. She is such a champion for human rights and international aid, and such an expert in it. It grieves me to think of how this could have been improved had the government listened to her all along.
I want to give her another opportunity to expand on the possible risks this legislation puts organizations and individuals at, because it is a registry and not a blanket carve-out for all organizations, and how that can affect the safety of people on the ground in Afghanistan.
98 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, a fundamental part of humanitarian law is that humanitarian assistance is protected and not a target. This is part of international humanitarian law for a very important reason: Even in the worst human situations, we need to ensure that humanitarian aid can be delivered. Even with the worst state actors, we need to make sure humanitarian aid can be delivered.
When this legislation goes into place, the way it could weaponize humanitarian aid is so dangerous to the organizations that are already putting themselves in danger and the volunteers who are already putting themselves at risk.
98 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.
The title of Bill C-41 is a bland one, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts, but the impact on people's lives is exciting. This bill is about providing help and hope for those in desperate need. It highlights the Canadian tradition of caring for those in other countries.
As we are all aware, the situation in states under terrorist rule can leave innocent people in dire need. As a member of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, I have heard many tragic reports from those with first-hand experience of war and authoritarian regimes where basic human rights are not recognized. As someone who came to Canada from a war zone, I can empathize with those innocent people who did not choose the authoritarian regimes that they may be forced to accept.
Canadian values of helping those in need are rooted in a Christian humanitarian world view. We want to help where we are able, and Bill C-41 would allow us to do just that. Canada does not take unilateral military action against aggressive regimes. Our way is to work co-operatively with like-minded countries for the benefit of everyone, and while military force is sometimes necessary, building international consensus can take time. While that is happening, innocent people can suffer. This legislation attempts to address that suffering.
For example, Canada does not recognize the legality of the Taliban government in Afghanistan, as the Taliban is a terrorist entity. We have no relations with it. We do not support terrorists. However, the people of Afghanistan are in need and their terrorist government has no desire to help them. Drastic changes are needed in states like Afghanistan, but more war is not the answer. This bill is a sign that Canada recognizes that. As we deal with the reality of the situation in Afghanistan and elsewhere, this bill would allow us to assist the critical organizations involved in providing immediate aid to those people most in need.
Our role as parliamentarians should be to have a free and open debate about the specifics of Bill C-41, which includes conducting an adequate study in committee. However, we should not be delaying the passing of this bill. To achieve this goal, I would suggest that the justice committee launch a prestudy on this bill. By doing so, we would allow a thorough study of this act and provide interested Canadians the opportunity to debate and understand the specific details of what Bill C-41 has to offer.
Canadians do not want to endorse non-democratic states. However, the on-the-ground support offered through various activist-led operations should not be hindered due to the oppressive cultural and political climate entrenched in these states. We need to promote “Women, Life, Freedom” in these areas. Real changes have to start somewhere. This bill has the potential to provide a beacon of hope to those in dire need of humanitarian aid. There is also the potential to leave a distasteful legacy if we in this House fail to launch a swift and adequate study of this bill.
It is important to the Canadian people that we stick to our true democratic values. Because of this, upholding the legacy of honourable success stories should be of utmost importance. The Canadian war efforts from 2001 and 2014 in Afghanistan highlighted the tragic failure of democracy against a terrorist stronghold. Since the reoccupation by the Taliban in 2021, it has been made abundantly clear that our approach was not effective in creating lasting change.
Our Canadian troops heard first-hand the stories of Afghan citizens of repression under the Taliban. They not only fought for their Canada, but they also fought for the good, innocent people they grew to love in their day-to-day lives. The grim situations they observed first-hand in Afghanistan should be enough for us to see that this bill, which would allow aid groups to meet the needs of the desperate without fear of criminal charges, should be supported.
One of my staffers, whose mother served with our troops in Afghanistan, has recounted the stories her mother shared of her time serving there protecting the people from the Taliban. As she struggled to reintegrate into the Canadian way of life upon returning, she found herself facing deep grief and inner turmoil as the Taliban once again seized power 13 years after she had physically left the country.
My colleagues, that mother's experience is not hers alone.
Canadian troops put their lives on the line not only for their country, but to help Afghan women and children have hope of a better life. Years of conflict and violence led to a humanitarian crisis that shattered the innocence of these people. Many were left with the impression that dangerous and unethical acts are how one earns the love desired from one's parents. Their sense of purpose in life is determined by the warped world view of the Taliban.
No child should have to grow up in fear, but that is the situation in Afghanistan. While we cannot do anything at this point about the government that creates that fear, with Bill C-41 we can probably do something to help with the humanitarian crisis the Taliban has created. We owe it to our veterans and to our fallen soldiers to continue the effort toward a better humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. We cannot let their sacrifices be in vain.
Bill C-41 would allow us, as Canadians, to help the immediate situation on the ground while other work is being done behind the scenes to influence the meaningful societal shift required.
With that in mind, I believe approaching the situation from both the top down and the bottom up should be the most effective way of inciting the change we seek.
This bill provides the foundation that assists on-the-ground organizations to operate in terrorist-run states. However, we must tread carefully. Bill C-41 still needs work. The people of Afghanistan, and others, still need help. We must ensure this bill is swiftly examined and improvements adopted.
We might, for example, want to look at our duty to protect Canadians who become targets of oppression in states like Afghanistan. Citizens who courageously go to these states to provide humanitarian aid to the suffering victims of these states know the Government of Canada will support them in any way it can.
Many questions will arise as this bill progresses through this House and we should allow some time to address the concerns of our colleagues in a thorough but timely fashion. A prestudy by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights would assist in this goal.
To be quite honest, the real question is whether Liberal government members are serious about providing protection for aid organizations and will make it a priority or whether it will be consigned to the legislative back burner as not important. Human lives are at stake. The choice is theirs.
1208 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, to answer the member's question, the government has made it a priority, and that is the reason we have seen the co-operation and the push not only for humanitarian aid but also for ways in which we can assist those Afghan refugees once they can get out of Afghanistan to come to Canada. Canada has led the way on that particular issue.
Recognizing there are many different agencies and individuals in Canada today who are very supportive of us continuing to provide that aid, and that this legislation we are debating today is in fact going to assist in Canada having an ongoing and more stable—
111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/27/23 5:45:25 p.m.
- Watch
I have to give the member the opportunity to answer and for other questions.
The hon. member for Edmonton Manning.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I guess the question was about the assurance that the agencies will continue to do the job. In cases like this, in crises like this, we need to be thinking ahead of time. That is what I think the government failed to do. We are talking about 18 months, 18 months where women, children and elders suffered a lot and the humanitarian aid did not get there to help them out and cope with these big challenges that they were going through.
The point is about the timing. I hope the government realizes that that was a mistake on its side.
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague just mentioned a very long time has passed since Canada was called on, in particular by my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean, to take action on this issue in Afghanistan.
In addition to the long delays, Canada has not done what it was expected to do to resolve this situation in Afghanistan. I am not the only one to have talked about this. Afghan citizens in my riding in Shefford and even Afghan members who I have met seem to find that this situation has dragged on.
With respect to its obligations, Canada has not done everything it promised to do, especially for the interpreters. We see how action on this file did not unfortunately live up to expectations. Canada could have and must do more immediately.
We will be there, ready to collaborate.
I would like the member to comment on that.
147 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we have been hammered by hundreds of emails and questions from members of the Afghani community and from Canadian society asking why the government has dragged its feet in helping these people. Timing is so critical because whatever one loses during this time period, one will lose big and can never recover. That is what we are faced with.
I do agree with her assessment on this. I wish the government had acted earlier on this.
78 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, people in Afghanistan are suffering now. It is appalling that the opposition parties have been calling on the government for over 18 months to address this situation and the government just now is acting on it by presenting a piece of flawed legislation.
Timing is so essential because Afghans need help now. In this piece of legislation there is a requirement of 180 days. Does the member agree that we should amend this to reduce that to 30 days or eliminate it entirely because the help needs to be delivered now?
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think timing is at the essence of this. I also suggested that maybe a quick prestudy at the justice committee would probably improve the quality and conditions of this bill to be able to push it further. If this mechanism is the correct one, I think if it is passed through the committee and the final stage here, that would be critical and very important.
68 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, at this point we are looking at legislation that we know is urgently needed but quite flawed. It need not have been so complicated to create a carve-out for charitable organizations.
Could the hon. member for Edmonton Manning comment on what they did in Australia, what they did in the U.K. and what our other allies in democratic efforts and in supporting the rights of women around the world did to ensure that their aid organizations could get in to assist?
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I believe we could use some executive orders to speed this up and provide the necessary steps to get aid to the people who need it the most.
30 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I would like to address the point of order raised earlier today, concerning government Motion No. 2 to concur in Senate amendments to Bill C‑11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.
The House leader of the official opposition has raised concerns as the procedural admissibility of the government's new motion claiming that it is substantially identical to the motion that the House has been seized with since March 8, citing the ruling of anticipation. He contended that two motions cannot both be before the House at the same time, as stated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition at page 568, that the rule of anticipation is:
dependent on the principle which forbids the same question from being decided twice within the same session. It does not apply, however, to similar or identical motions or bills which appear on the Notice Paper prior to debate. The rule of anticipation becomes operative only when one of two similar motions on the Order Paper is actually proceeded with. For example, two bills similar in substance will be allowed to stand on the Order Paper but only one may be moved and disposed of. If a decision is taken on the first bill (for example, to defeat the bill or advance it through a stage in the legislative process), then the other may not be proceeded with. If the first bill is withdrawn (by unanimous consent, often after debate has started), then the second may be proceeded with.
In a ruling on November 2, 1989, Speaker Fraser, at page 5474 of the Debates, provided this helpful observation: “in the view of the Chair, two or more items are substantially the same if...they have the same purpose”.
This is the test to be applied when determining if an item of business is so similar that it cannot coexist with another item of business. In this case, while the difference between the two motions may appear to be minor, adopting the second motion would bring about a different outcome than adopting the first, in that it would result in a different amendment being accepted by the House in the French version of the bill. This means that the second motion is indeed substantively different than the first motion, and therefore, the concern over similarity is not present.
It should also be noted that, according to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, the rule of anticipation has never been part of our Standing Orders and, furthermore, is no longer strictly observed. Invoking the rule stating that a decision once made must stand, which is detailed on pages 590 and 591 of the third edition, is often more relevant than the rule of anticipation. Indeed, there are several examples, including some cited by the opposition House leader, of two items proceeding simultaneously until a decision is made on one of them. I would point out that the House has not yet made a decision on the first motion.
As I understand it, the objective of the second motion is to correct an error found in the first, an error that arose because the numbering of the amendments is not the same in English and in French. Allowing such an error to stand runs the risk that the English and French versions of the bill would be different, with different definitions being kept in each language, therefore making the will of the House unclear.
The opposition House leader argues that the appropriate course of action should be to make this correction by way of an amendment, which could be moved once the current amendment to motion 1 has been disposed of. While that is indeed one way of addressing the issue, the Chair does not believe it is the only way. Instead, the government has proposed to bring forward a new motion with the necessary correction.
Given that the substantive effect of the two motions is different and given that no decision has been made on the first motion, I am prepared to allow debate on Motion No. 2 to proceed.
I thank the members for their attention.
700 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
