Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Will Senator Martin take a brief question?

This question is appropriate for you especially because you were a co-chair of the MAID committee. This bill proposes that within two years after Royal Assent, a joint committee of Parliament will be struck to undertake a review relating to the eligibility and readiness. So, it is possible that this committee will be called into life after as late as two years, giving the committee just one year.

Here we are on February 26, and we are pressed for time to approve the bill by this Thursday; otherwise, the law will kick in. Do you believe that is enough time for your committee to study, once again in 2027, the questions of eligibility and readiness, when this time you didn’t — at least it doesn’t appear to me that you did — have sufficient time?

Hon. Ratna Omidvar moved second reading of Bill C-41, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill C-41, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. Bill C-41 will create a regime to facilitate the delivery of certain types of international assistance in geographic areas controlled by terrorist groups. I will try my best to be brief but also comprehensive because, for many of you, this is the first time that you have heard about this bill.

The story of Bill C-41 begins in August 2021, with the fall of the Afghanistan regime in Kabul to the Taliban, which has had many dire consequences that have been raised in this chamber by my colleagues Senator Jaffer, Senator McPhedran and Senator Ataullahjan.

The consequences have been felt by the people of Afghanistan — the young people and, most particularly, women and girls. There has also been a humanitarian impact with infant mortality on the rise because of the lack of medication, water, food and other life-saving interventions. Millions of Afghans have suffered through drought, earthquakes and other humanitarian disasters, and, of course, due to the repression by the Taliban.

The Taliban was and is a pariah in the world. Canada listed the Taliban as a terrorist entity many years ago. Now that it is the government, Canadians are prevented by law from paying any taxes or fees to it. This has a direct impact on aid to Afghanistan because when you are delivering aid, by default you have to access services and, therefore, directly or indirectly pay fees and taxes to the government of the Taliban — which may then use it for their own terrorist purposes. By doing so, any Canadian, or Canadian organization, can be charged criminally. Canadian aid to Afghanistan through our international development agencies, including agencies like the Afghan Women’s Organization, which runs an orphanage in the Helmand region, has been blocked.

This bill is long overdue, in my view — it has been a little too long in the making. The Canadian international aid community identified this problem over a year ago, and came together in a coalition which they called the Aid for Afghanistan humanitarian coalition. There are 13 international aid agencies working together in times of disaster with a combined presence in 140 countries. They include World Vision, the Red Cross, CARE, Action Against Hunger, Canadian Foodgrains Bank, Canadian Lutheran World Relief, Doctors of the World, Humanity & Inclusion, Islamic Relief, Oxfam, Oxfam-Québec, Plan International and Save the Children.

I want to thank the Senate Human Rights Committee, chaired by Senator Ataullahjan, for its timely work on this issue. Last year, the committee produced an important report that gave voice to the concerns of the aid community, and provided many practical steps forward. Some of the central recommendations of the report have been included in Bill C-41. This is an example of a committee doing its work as it should.

As some of you may know, I have been involved with the Afghanistan issue in Canada through my work with Lifeline Afghanistan. But frankly, we need to now throw a lifeline to Afghanistan because of the context that you know, but let me describe it: Afghans have faced 40 years of conflict, and they have tried to survive this on top of staying resilient through many natural disasters, such as widespread poverty, unprecedented migration and, of course, earthquakes. If that wasn’t enough, delivering aid to Afghanistan is already complicated due to its geography.

The de facto authority in Afghanistan, whether we like it or not, is the Taliban, and the delivery of aid, as I pointed out, one way or the other, will benefit this terrorist organization by default. As a result, Canadian aid organizations, including departments of the Government of Canada, risk inadvertently breaking the law if they attempt to provide aid within Afghanistan. As a result, Afghans continue to suffer, their lives continue to be at risk and they need our help, even with the most basic elements for survival: food, shelter, protection, education and health care. We must be able to deliver it to them, and to others in this situation, without distinguishing where the lives are at risk or which jurisdiction they fall under.

That’s why the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code are critical. As the sponsor of Bill C-41, I would like to take a few moments to explain why, and delve into some detail. Currently, the Criminal Code contains very strong counterterrorism financing provisions, and that is as it should be. Specifically, under section 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, as I outlined, are having an extremely significant impact on Canada’s aspirations on the global stage to provide aid to people whose lives are at risk.

The bill essentially creates two paths. One is for impartial humanitarian assistance, and one is for longer-term development assistance in areas controlled by a terrorist regime.

The original bill, which had its second reading in the House a few months ago, did not include a humanitarian carve-out. After much outcry from international aid organizations and from Doctors Without Borders, amendments adopted in the other place will modify the Criminal Code to create a humanitarian assistance exemption from the terrorist financing offences in section 83.03(b) for the sole purpose of carrying out humanitarian assistance activities conducted by impartial humanitarian organizations in accordance with international law while using reasonable efforts to minimize any benefit to terrorist groups.

Let me explain to you what this means: As we heard from the Canadian Red Cross at the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights on Monday, the exemption allows for Canadian humanitarian organizations to undertake their work with the knowledge that Canadian law supports the international legal interpretation to provide neutral, impartial and humanitarian action that does not further terrorism. It allows for much-needed assistance to reach individuals and communities that are most often impacted, without requiring Canadian organizations to seek permission to undertake such work.

The humanitarian exemption covers a broad range of humanitarian work permitted under international law — not only life-saving assistance. These activities are vital for approving access to health care, and ensuring access to food, water, sanitation, the protection of detainees and the protection of human dignity.

The humanitarian exemption applies once the bill receives Royal Assent. It is a self-execution form of exemption, meaning that an organization does not need to go through any application process — in any way — if the organization concludes, after its own risk assessment, that they are protected under the exemption. I’m told by the Canadian Aid for Afghanistan humanitarian coalition — made up of the Red Cross, World Vision and others — that when the bill becomes law, they are ready to go. They have been waiting and waiting to act, and this will allow them to act and support vulnerable Afghans in need without fear of criminal charges.

Second, the bill establishes, for permissible development activities, that eligible persons and organizations could be granted certain authorizations by the government that would shield them from criminal liability for their operations in a geographic area controlled by a terrorist group.

Let me go off script for a moment. The definition of persons in this context does not mean me or Senator Tony Dean. It actually means the international aid organizations who would likely work on the ground, through the action of individuals and, therefore, the individuals would need to be named in the application.

The establishment of this regime will be developed through regulations, which I am told are aggressively under discussion because the minister promised that he wants to ensure that red tape does not get in the way of essential aid.

The authorizations will also cover implementing partners or service providers involved in the delivery of such permissible activities. These will include activities intended to support the longer-term sustainability of vulnerable populations, including the need to support women and girls and their safe and meaningful participation in society.

It also enables activities to support immigration processing for Afghans seeking to leave dangerous situations. Applications for authorization under this second stream would be accepted from persons in Canada, Canadians outside Canada and Canadian organizations.

Under this authorization regime, the Minister of Public Safety will consider applications that have been referred to it by the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, who would first need to be satisfied that certain conditions are met.

These conditions are as follows: One, that the proposed activities will occur in an area controlled by a terrorist group; two, that they will be carried out for one or more of the specified purposes; and, three, they will respond to a real and emergent need. Moreover, the referring minister — either the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship — would also need to be satisfied that the applicant is capable of administering funds in high-risk environments and, furthermore, that they are effectively reporting on that administration.

Once a referral has been received by the Minister of Public Safety, the national security apparatus would conduct a security review to assess the impact of granting the authorization on terrorism financing.

Senators, this is an important step for security purposes. We must know whether the applicants of those involved in implementing the proposed activities have any links to terrorist groups. We must know whether they have been investigated in the past for terrorism activities. And to be absolutely clear, we must know that terrorism financing is out of the picture for all involved.

That’s exactly the bar that must be passed for the Minister of Public Safety to grant such an authorization. But there is important redress for aid organizations if they are denied for any reason. If an application is refused, the applicant can reapply in 30 days. Applicants can also seek recourse through a judicial review.

Authorizations in this — please remember, the second stream — would be granted for a period of up to five years and would apply to any person or organization involved in carrying out the authorized activities. Authorizations may also be subject to additional security reviews and would be eligible for renewal. Granted or renewed authorizations may also be amended, revoked, suspended or restricted in scope.

For example, if the applicant fails to comply with the authorization and its requirements, then that authorization must be reconsidered.

Colleagues, let me summarize the process for you one more time. First, with the passage of the law, humanitarian assistance activities would be exempted completely and impartial humanitarian organizations would not have to apply for an authorization. They could be ready to go.

Second, the Minister of Public Safety would provide written information as to whether an authorization for other activities is required for a region.

Third, eligible applicants interested in conducting these permissible activities would submit their complete application to the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. They would assess the application for compliance with specific purposes, need and the applicant’s capacity.

If these two ministers are satisfied that their conditions are met, they would refer the application to the Minister of Public Safety, who would initiate a security review. The Minister of Public Safety would either grant the authorization or refuse it on a risk-versus-benefit assessment. Authorization holders would be subject to reporting and compliance monitoring.

I should note that even though I have spoken a great deal about Afghanistan, the bill does not specifically mention Afghanistan. It does apply in other contexts to other regions, unfortunately, which may also fall under the control of a terrorist regime, which does not mean that the people who are suffering — whose lives are at risk — should not be able to avail themselves of international aid.

Colleagues, this bill is very different from the bill we considered at second reading. It was amended vigorously in the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights with the participation of the stakeholders.

In the original bill, the onus was placed on humanitarian actors to determine themselves which geographic areas are controlled by a terrorist regime. In order to reduce the burden on humanitarian actors, the amended bill now puts the onus on the minister to do so.

The onus is also on the minister to provide written information as to whether an authorization regime for permissible activities is required. This is what the community is calling the go/no-go clause. 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.

Honourable senators, further amendments in the other place also increase the protections of privacy to explicitly restrict the use of applicant information for the purposes of the authorization request or its renewal. Information sharing by prescribed departments to collect and disclose information has been limited to the purposes of the administration and enforcement of the regime.

Honourable senators, in addition, the Minister of Public Safety will provide an annual report on the operation of this regime. The first annual report will be tabled on April 1, 2024, followed by an annual report every year, and then followed by a five-year parliamentary review.

The report must also include a plan and timeline to remedy any deficiencies.

As Martin Fischer from World Vision told us at committee:

Given the need to strike the balance between addressing the urgency in Afghanistan, understanding the parameters of the Criminal Code . . . I think there’s a fair balance. Anything that we will learn — and we will learn during that first year of round of applications — we’re hopeful that we can go through the regulatory process and . . . if we find things we don’t agree with, holding government to account and improving the bill at that point.

Finally, colleagues — and this is important — Bill C-41 moves us closer to regimes in other countries who are part of a global world order, and I’m talking specifying about regimes in the U.S., the U.K., Australia and the EU.

The government’s approach is tailored to Canada but also based on our work with NGOs. We heard at committee that Bill C-41 is a step towards matching what other countries do. Dr. Jason Nickerson, from Doctors Without Borders, said several other countries have humanitarian exemption language contained within similar and some slightly different parts of their Criminal Code. Humanitarian exemptions are in country legislation, as I said, in Australia, the EU, New Zealand, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. The NGOs also believe that this is a step in a longer journey to broader humanitarian and development reform and that the learnings here will chart the course for the future.

In conclusion, colleagues, we need to help vulnerable people now. We know how quickly situations change in a dangerous, terrorist-controlled environment, and we know that right now we need action as opposed to more deliberation.

All the witnesses at committee told us that because of the humanitarian carve-out, because of the increased privacy safeguards and because of the one-year annual review they believe that this bill is now fit for purpose and should be passed without delay. Thank you for your attention.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak on Bill C-242, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, specifically on temporary resident visas for parents and grandparents. I am officially the critic of this bill, and the dictionary defines a “critic” as someone who finds fault with the substance, disagrees with it or has an unfavourable opinion of it. If that is the case, colleagues, I stand before you as a complete imposter because, in truth, there is very little in this bill that is not to like. I would like to congratulate MP Kyle Seeback and Senator Victor Oh for bringing this bill to our attention.

This bill is very personal to me, as it is to many immigrants and aspiring immigrants. Five short years after I arrived in Canada, I sponsored my parents to come and join me as we were building a new life. You have heard me say often in this chamber that I am only a senator today because my mother stayed behind to look after the children and the home while I worked long hours, evenings and weekends.

My application to sponsor my parents on a permanent basis was approved in six short months. Now, of course, that is a pipe dream, and we have had to find new pathways, new innovations and alternative routes to hold families together.

While I did not agree with many of the immigration policies of Prime Minister Harper, I must say that the expedited pathway for parents and grandparents through super visas was, frankly, a super innovation. It recognized that many parents and grandparents want a secure yet nimble pathway for extended stays without necessarily wanting to move permanently to Canada. They have lives of their own in their countries, they have homes and I know that many dread our winters. This is not to say that there are not others who want to live permanently in Canada, and I will remark on this cohort a little later in my remarks.

This bill is an expression of our larger ambitions for what I would say is a bigger, bolder Canada. We know that roughly one quarter of Canada’s population is or has been a landed immigrant or permanent resident in the past. Recently, the government announced its ambition to bring in 500,000 immigrants. Further, a recent poll by Environics underlines that 7 in 10 Canadians support these immigration measures. I personally believe that more immigration — done right — is good for Canada, it’s good for immigrants and it’s good for all of us. This bill on parents and grandparents moves us in that direction for a simple reason.

Honourable senators, I believe that Canada has a competitive edge over other countries because of our stance on parents and grandparents. We know that there are backlogs in every business stream in the system. We know that there are challenges in integration, and yet immigrants are not turning their backs on Canada. In fact, the queue to get in is getting longer and longer. You may well ask why. Well, there are a number of really important reasons. First, we are a safe and secure country. Second, we have an excellent public education system and a public health system, which may be under stress at this point. As a final touch, it is our capacity to welcome parents and grandparents. This final bit is our secret sauce. This sets us apart from other countries. It is our jewel in the crown.

Yet, family reunification has had a very bumpy ride in the last 10 years. The demand has grown. The numbers for permanent family reunification of parents and grandparents are limited to 20,000 a year, and are scooped up in a nanosecond. Because this is an online application, I always worry about those who are able to fill out the application in a nanosecond and those who are left outside. The government has resorted to different strategies to try and manage the waiting time, including instituting a lottery system at one point, which in my view is an abrogation of their management responsibility.

Bill C-242 takes an important step to facilitate longer-term visas outside the permanent stream of parents and grandparents. It improves the off-ramp that we have created. It allows the parent or grandparent to apply for a temporary resident visa for a longer period of time — not 2 years out of 10, but 5 years out of 10. That doesn’t mean they’re going to stay here for five years. It means that they can come and go as they wish. It allows them to purchase health insurance from a company that is not located in Canada. Many of these parents and grandparents have insurance companies of their own. Like in Canada, they must buy car insurance, life insurance — all kinds of insurance. They have a relationship with these insurance companies, and it is likely that they will get better rates and better approvals with the companies that they are associated with.

This bill allows for international companies to provide health insurance to applicants of the super visa stream with a proviso. The proviso is that the minister has to approve their name. There has to be a list. This will likely be done by ministerial instructions, and I think this is a question that the committee that this bill is assigned to should reflect on carefully.

On the matter of cost, buying insurance from a Canadian company, depending on your age, can be anywhere from $2,000 to $5,000. Consider the cost of flights, medical checks and insurance — you’re looking at possibly close to $10,000 every two years in the current system. For many middle-class parents and grandparents, this could be a deterrent, and one I believe this bill seeks to remove.

The bill also has an extremely interesting nugget. The summary of the bill reads as follows:

It also requires the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to prepare and table a report in respect of a reduction to the minimum income requirement that the child or grandchild must meet in order for the visiting parent or grandparent to be able to enter and remain in Canada for an extended period.

I support this measure. Studies have shown that the financial requirements for family sponsorship — either permanent or temporary — are onerous. New Canadian families are getting their lives started. We know the hurdles they face in obtaining employment. I believe it is precisely at the time when they are low-income that they most need their families with them so they can be helped — in the same way that my parents helped me.

This bill calls for the minister to table a report within one year of Royal Assent so that we can find a fact-based, reasonable way forward.

Honourable senators, I do have three comments, if I may put it that way: The first is outside the scope of this bill, but is worth your consideration.

There is a permanent stream of parent and grandparent immigration. It, too, is dependent on income level. Since we have this off-ramp that is largely designed for middle-income, middle‑class parents of immigrants outside of Canada, I believe the permanent stream should be privileged and prioritized for low‑income parents.

The second is that no Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, official has ever been able to tell me the breakdown between how many parents versus grandparents enter in the permanent or the temporary stream. That information is important because there are too many myths surrounding this.

The third — and this is important for the committee to consider — is that this bill does not provide for any appeals for rejected temporary visas for parents and grandparents.

Finally, on a happy note, I should say that this bill was roundly supported in the other place. In an era of hyper-partisanship, I’m happy to see that there are moments when all parties agree — and agree on fixes to immigration, which we know can be a divisive issue. It is heartening that there is growing political consensus that immigration — when done right — is not only good for Canada, but integral to our future prosperity. Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Thank you, Senator Martin, for being indefatigable in your defence of “lost Canadians.” I am the official critic of the bill, and I always thought of a critic as someone who is unfriendly or opposed to the bill, but this is certainly not the case. I am very friendly to the bill, as you well know.

When I became a senator in 2016, and because of my established interest in citizenship, I started to get a lot of emails about “lost Canadians.” I had never heard the term before, to be honest. I was, frankly, lost when I heard that terminology. For those of us who have found Canada, who know what a privilege it is to be a Canadian, to have inadvertently lost citizenship because of what I can only describe as bureaucratic fumbling and missteps is unimaginable.

When I rose subsequently — it was, I think, my first major speech in the Senate — as a sponsor for a major citizenship bill, I described citizenship as a home. I drew a picture of a house, a home, that has a strong door and a lot of windows to let the sun shine in, but also a very strong roof to keep the danger out. The foundation of this welcoming but safe home is grounded in a few essential principles.

The first and most important is equality among citizens. Equality sees all citizens — by birth or naturalization, mono-citizens or dual citizens, whether they’ve been citizens for 50 years or a month — treated equally under the law. Equal rights, equal responsibilities and, when necessary, equal punishments. These are not aspirational goals. These are the floor, the absolute foundation of how equality is expressed in Canada.

The second is the principle of facilitating citizenship or making it easier for people to get citizenship. I think of this, again, as the main floor of the house, a welcoming home with a big fire, blazing to keep out the wretched cold, and with a big welcoming door. However, “lost Canadians” have lost the warmth of this fire. In fact, they were kicked out of the home. Think of it as an eviction.

As we know, our immigration system and our citizenship laws are incredibly complex. Because of this complexity, they sometimes catch people in their net, and it is hard for people to get out and deal with this devastating yet unintended outcome. I will admit that this was not intended. This was accidental, but how often do we in this chamber deal with unintended but devastating outcomes of legislation that was passed either in the other house or here?

Senator Martin has already provided you with the background of how “lost Canadians” came to be lost. I am not going to repeat that. I will just tell you about how currently “lost Canadians” deal with becoming found. It is on a case-by-case basis. They have to make an application to the minister and to the ministry to get their citizenship back. I wonder about the equity of a case-by-case basis, when what we really need is a systemic solution. A case-by-case basis means that everybody who is lost needs to have the same kind of determination and agency as Byrdie Funk, who was a famous “lost Canadian.” She petitioned the court, she petitioned the minister and got her lost citizenship back, but again, it is taken case by case. Senator Martin’s proposal is a systemic fix.

Senator Dalphond last time asked a reasonable question: How many people does this impact? Not that many actually. Maybe a few hundred. Maybe 200. We don’t know, because maybe the “lost Canadians” don’t even know that they’re lost until they have to apply for a passport, and then they find out.

The consequences of losing your citizenship are also severe. While waiting to get your citizenship, you may not have a social security number that is valid. You may not be able to get a job. You may not be able to travel, and you may have limited access to health care — all this at a time when a potential deportation could be in the works. So this is very severe, even if it is for a few hundred people. I think we all understand that injustice to one person, a few people or even a hundred people is intolerable in our system.

I also want to point out that there are other lost Canadians, and I congratulate and commend Senator Martin for being focused and practical on dealing with those whom we can help most immediately. Legislation is never the art of perfection. I believe it is the art of what is possible. This legislation is in our reach. Colleagues, I urge you to support it. Thank you.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Senator Tannas, will you take another question?

Senator Omidvar: Thank you, senator. I agree with most of what you have said. Even though I will likely vote for the bill today and I don’t believe this is the moment for brinkmanship of any kind, I think this is an appropriate time to have this discussion. No doubt — as Senator Mercer pointed out — we will see the same situation again and we will beat ourselves on the chest and say, “Here we go again.”

We have a systemic problem and the Senate needs a systemic fix to this problem. During the six years I have been in the Senate, we have discussed all kinds of problems and solutions, we tabled the Senate Modernization report, and yet we’ve made no progress.

Senator Tannas, as a result of your intervention, when we return, can we expect to see a motion from you or others — but since you’ve raised this question, a motion from you — on dealing with the systems problem, possibly in the way Senator Lankin has identified? We absolutely need a solution so that we do not again find ourselves in the situation where we are hurried, rushed and not able to do the work we are supposed to do, even though we are the unelected people. I will put that as a proviso.