Evidence of meeting #60 for Justice and Human Rights in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
I feel that it just makes sense. It's what the humanitarian organizations we heard from at committee asked for. They work on the ground and they need information. I think it's quite clear and simple. I even think it's almost the same thing as amendment NDP‑4, except we're adding an item b). Ours is just a little more fleshed out.
I think that everyone should vote in favour of it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
If you're referring to the right amendment, it should be 12349530.
Is that the one you're referring to?
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Are you talking about the one I sent right before the meeting?
I'm sorry, we're not talking about the same amendment. That one I'm going to withdraw. We've consulted with each other and we'll withdraw it.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
It was the same thing we just voted on.
I thought we were talking about amendment BQ‑1. I apologize.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Now we will speak about NDP-3.1.
This amendment is not in the package. It was circulated in a separate document, along with version 2 of the package, by email before our meeting. I want to make sure that everyone has it.
The reference number is 12356028.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Chair, just on a point of order, I didn't see any of these in a new package.
Liberal
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you.
Basically, this is something that's been asked for by the Aid for Afghanistan coalition. What we've done here is added in “substantially controlled”. I do have to say that, from the way that this has all gone, I have to subamend this amendment because listed entities are of course.... That amendment didn't pass earlier.
The only thing we're really adding in there is the “substantially controlled”, and we would change the cases of “listed entity” back to “terrorist group”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Ms. McPherson, you can't amend your own amendment, so somebody else will have to amend that.
I'll go to Mr. Genuis and also see if he's the one who's going to be doing that.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
It's simply because it's impossible to write an amendment based on....
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I do think a member is able to move an amendment that's different from the one they submitted. For simplicity, I have submitted a draft subamendment to this amendment just now to the clerk, depending on how fast the Internet is working today. It proposes to replace “listed entity” with “terrorist group” in all three places.
NDP
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
The effect of that would be to align with the proposal of the Aid for Afghanistan coalition by clarifying that we're talking about substantial control, which is, from our perspective, reasonable, but preserving the reference to a “terrorist group” not just a “listed entity”.
With that subamendment, we would be supportive of the amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Maybe, as chair, I can ask if one of the officials can speak on this or share some comments on what they think of this amendment—not the subamendment but the amendment—as it is.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Mr. Chair, I may, if you would like, clarify that proposed subsection 83.032(1) is the power to issue an authorization. Therefore, the provision on obligations, the potential criminal liability, remains for providing support to a terrorist group whether it is listed or it meets the requirements.
This amendment would limit the ability to ask for an authorization to situations where there is substantial control. In principle at least, a terrorist group that has less than substantial control, which an entity has to deal with unavoidably, would not be able to apply for an authorization.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I need some clarity on what you just said. By adding the words “substantially controlled” they would not be able to apply, or they would be...? What is changing for an aid organization?
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The obligations, as in the existing law as we formulated in BillC-41, are in proposed subsections 83.03(1) and 83.03(2), for knowingly supporting terrorist purposes and knowingly supporting terrorist organizations. Proposed subsection 83.032(1) is the power given to the Minister of Public Safety to issue an authorization.
This amendment limits the power to issue that authorization. The existing law would remain and a potential liability, but the ability to apply under a situation that does not meet the requirement of substantial control would be removed.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
You're saying that if you're an aid organization working in a country, it would still be at risk of criminal liability, but the minister is unable to grant the authorization because of the wording of this. Is that what you're saying?
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
In principle, at least, yes. It's possible that, factually, if there's no substantial control there would be no liability. I can't speak to the application of law in specific facts, but in principle, at least from a legal scope perspective, this would be reducing the scope of the minister to provide authorizations for those who wish to apply for them.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
It's not actually giving them more ability. I'm looking at it from the aid organization's perspective, because my colleague is correct that this is something that was asked for by the coalition of aid agencies. From what you're saying, though, it would put them more at risk rather than less at risk.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I'd defer to them to assess their risk, particularly in light of the new amendment that carves out humanitarian assistance, but yes, it does reduce the scope of the ability of the Minister of Public Safety to issue authorizations.