I take your point, and I'm certain there are some organizations and their legal advisers who take the view that this authorization would not be required. If Parliament chooses to pass the legislation, then that is its prerogative.
My point would be that, if you are an organization or a government entity that wishes to secure protection for yourself from the potential liability of existing provisions, specifically proposed subsection 83.03(2), because you are concerned that you are giving, indirectly or directly, property to a person who is, let's say, a terrorist group.... In other words, you know that the organization might use “in whole or in part, for the purpose of facilitating or carrying out any terrorist activity, or for the purpose of benefiting any person who is facilitating or carrying out such an activity”.
In other words, you know the organization is doing terrorist events, and you're concerned that you're somehow giving funds to them that could violate the substantive provision, which is proposed subsection 83.03(2), then the scope under which you could apply would be more limited. Perhaps you don't need to. Perhaps there is consensus amongst relevant organizations, including the Canadian government, that you're not required to do that. You'll be safe from doing so, whether in Canada or abroad.
I'm simply pointing out that that is the effect of the amendment.