Let's simply look at section 52.3, which the bill proposes to add to the Criminal Code and which deals with the consent of the Attorney General. It says that “No proceeding for an offence under subsection 52(1), 52.1(1) or 52.2(1)”, that is, sabotage offences, “shall be instituted without the Attorney General's consent”. The Criminal Code defines the Attorney General as the provinces, the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions in Quebec and the Attorney General. If Ottawa wishes to retain its discretion, it should say “Attorney General of Canada”. There is language like that in section 773 of the Criminal Code to allow the federal government to retain its discretion with respect to certain sections of the Criminal Code that are more sensitive internationally, whether against other countries or against other individuals.
There is also the exception set out in proposed subsection 52(5). According to the bill, an act of sabotage is permitted when a person participates in advocacy, protest or dissent, but does not intend to cause any of the harms referred to in paragraphs 52(1)(a) to (c). It's extremely broad. We're still referring to the first paragraph of this clause, which is a problem in the first place. With respect to the latter part of the exception, as I mentioned, I haven't seen that in New Zealand, for example. I've only seen it in the current bill. In my opinion, this wording would create problems, because its scope is much too broad.