Public Safety committee  Yes. The recognizance with conditions regime does not need to provide explicitly for rules regarding the right to counsel, as these proceedings are governed by section 7 of the charter.

Public Safety committee  This refers to a recognizance with conditions, so it's a specific recognizance order. The threshold of reasonable suspicion is the imposition of recognizance on a person, or the arrest of the person as necessary. It existed in the past from 2001 to 2007 and 2013 to 2015. While t

Public Safety committee  It raises the bar a bit, yes. It responds in part to the feedback received during the national security consultation that the thresholds were thought to be too low.

Public Safety committee  I can perhaps start. As mentioned, problems arose in proposed paragraph 83.221(2)(b) from the wording “whether or not”. That is whether or not “(b) the person counsels the commission of a specific terrorism offence” and whether or not “(a) a terrorism offence is committed”. Tha

Public Safety committee  The current section 83.221 is the law, but the proposal is to eliminate the “commission of terrorism offences in general”, which was regarded by some as being unclear. With regard to advocating or promoting the commission of terrorism offences, it was thought that could be clarif

Public Safety committee  Sorry, I don't want to get too far ahead.

Public Safety committee  No.

Public Safety committee  Thank you. Quite a bit can be said. The Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, did create a new offence of advocating or promoting terrorism offences and the commission of terrorism offences in general. This was to respond to a gap or uncertainty in the law. The pre-existing counselling pro

Public Safety committee  The intent of the amendment sets out the general parameters for publication, but builds in flexibility for the publication schedule, having in mind the proposed staggered review of newly listed and already listed entities going forward. For example, the bill would allow for bulk

Public Safety committee  I don't have a firm answer on that, but the Governor in Council would have made the decision to delist.

Public Safety committee  It's a listed entity as defined in section 83.01, so it would include the entities on the Criminal Code terrorist listing. As some of the other proposed motions to amend have shown, the term “listed entity” appears in other sections within the Criminal Code and elsewhere. For exa

Public Safety committee  “Terrorist group” is a defined term in the Criminal Code as well, and part of it is.... It means an entity that has as one of its purposes or activities facilitating or carrying out any terrorist activity, or any listed entity, and includes an association of such entities.

Public Safety committee  Yes.

Public Safety committee  The definition relates to the listing process because it refers to “listed entity”. Canada is obliged under the UN Security Council Resolution 1373 to “freeze without delay” property belonging to terrorists or those associated with them. Canada has implemented this obligation, in

Public Safety committee  Yes, I have, but I don't have any comments and wasn't involved in the drafting of this particular provision.