Justice committee  To add to what my colleague said—and, in fact, what my boss said—section 83.08 essentially freezes property owned or controlled by a terrorist group. It makes it essentially a crime for someone to deal in property that's owned or controlled by a terrorist group. Section 83.09 allows for the Minister of Public Safety to authorize the release of property that has been frozen, subject to terms and conditions that the minister wishes to impose.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  You can renew the initial time frame for each authorization. It's a maximum of five years, but it can be renewed.

Justice committee  It's an in rem procedure. No one need be charged with the crime. There's also section 320, which was originally put in the Criminal Code when the offences were created back in 1970—a different time, of course—which allowed for a judge to order the seizure and forfeiture of hate propaganda kept on premises for distribution or sale.

Justice committee  I'm afraid I'd have to speculate on why it's not being used. It may be, perhaps, as was mentioned, that lack of resources might be an issue. It has been mentioned that section 320.1.... Maybe I'll just set out the parameters of it. Section 320.1 is a specific provision in the Criminal Code that was created by the Anti-terrorism Act back in 2001.

Justice committee  Thank you.

Public Safety committee  For counselling you're trying to counsel someone to commit an offence. The idea is that there would be a person who you're trying to effect, but it doesn't have to have an effect on that person. For example, if I were to counsel you to commit an offence and you're an undercover police officer and there's no risk at all of the offence being committed, I would still be guilty of counselling the commission of the crime.

Public Safety committee  My understanding is that you don't have to know specifically who it is you're contacting. You don't have to know the identity of the person who you're contacting. You can counsel generally to a group of people. One particular example in that regard might be.... You may recall the decision in the Mugesera case in which Mr.

Public Safety committee  I'm somewhat reluctant to give a legal opinion on that type of issue.

Public Safety committee  I would answer that simply by saying I think what has been proposed would help strengthen the ability and not weaken it. It would strengthen counselling, let's put it that way. It would strengthen the ability to use counselling.

Public Safety committee  This one, yes.

Public Safety committee  I'll just say that, with the proposed amendment, what we're trying to do is deal with the problem of the potential overlap that had been mentioned in order to ensure that an appropriate punishment can be put on someone who counsels the commission of a specific terrorism offence, whether or not the offence is committed, and they would be captured by section 22 and section 464 of the Criminal Code, so that the maximum five-year penalty would not come into play for that, which was originally in Bill C-59.

Public Safety committee  I'm Glenn Gilmour, legal counsel with the criminal law policy section of the Department of Justice. I work with Mr. Breithaupt. The terms “promotion” and “advocating” are terms that have been judicially interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada. Promoting was examined by the Supreme Court of Canada in the well-known case of R. v.

Justice committee  That's essentially what would happen. The principle behind both this amendment and the coordinating amendment is that, at all times, there would be consistency with the definition of “identifiable group” as it exists in the Criminal Code, either as it currently is right now or as it may be amended by Bill C-16.

Justice committee  This would propose to add the concepts of age, sex, or mental or physical disability to what had been proposed originally in Bill C-305. It makes no reference to the concept of gender identity, but for a particular reason. This amendment would make the hate-motivating criteria in Bill C-305 consistent with the current hate-motivating criteria in the present definition of “identifiable group” for the hate propaganda offences in the Criminal Code.

Justice committee  Well, there is a difference, of course, between a building being “primarily used”—that means, presumably, the main reason that the building is being used is for that particular purpose—versus just “used”. “Used” could be someone using that particular building several times, infrequently, or just one time; whereas, “primarily used” means that the purpose for which that building has been built or established is primarily that use alone, and not other uses.