—but it could, from my reading, include not just non-state actors but also state actors who engage in violations of international law. There is no clear exclusion to say that other states—which, in certain cases, Canada recognizes—couldn't necessarily be considered terrorist organizations.
The legislation puts the onus on humanitarian organizations to determine whether or not they need to apply for this exemption. In a case with a listed terrorist organization controlling a territory like Afghanistan, it's relatively clear-cut that an exemption would be required. There may be cases in which it's not clear whether or not an organization is engaging in terrorist activity according to the Criminal Code, and therefore whether an exemption is required. This legislation could actually create additional problems for organizations that would then be unsure whether or not they would need to apply for an exemption to operate in a particular area when an organization controlling the territory might not be listed. To me, that's a clear problem, and that speaks to the need for clarity around whether we're talking only about listed organizations or about any organization that is defined as terrorist.
What is your response to that, and would you be supportive of providing that clarity in this legislation going forward?