Yes, please, Mr. Chair. I can speak to it.
With regard to NDP-7, basically, we heard during the testimony and we heard when we spoke to the sector that the term “links” is not defined anywhere in the legislation, nor does it carry any legal weight. The Aid for Afghanistan coalition shared this with us. We heard this time and time again. The language in the bill is too discretionary. It could risk guilt by association. That was something Ms. West clearly explained during her testimony. Because the term “links” is so vague, this could lead to the denial of applications based on conjecture of a relationship between the terrorist group and an applicant. It doesn't give the reassurance that organizations are looking for.
We therefore put forward this amendment, with some specific language used to assess the relationships between the applicant and the other parties.
Part (a) of this amendment replaces the term “links” with clear criteria that the minister will take into account.
Part (b) of the amendment replaces lines 2 to 7 on page 5, which mentions “is being or has been investigated”. It has been argued that the simple fact of being investigated or charged therefore presumes guilt, which opens the door to discriminatory or overly discretionary decisions.
We are asking for this just to provide the clarity that the sector has been asking for.
Thank you.