Justice committee  Potentially you are, although I believe my colleague has more to add from a practical perspective.

Justice committee  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 organizat

Justice committee  I would just say that I agree with your point. I think from a legal perspective it does narrow the ability to authorize. I think part of the argument—and I don't want to speak for others—may be that, in highlighting the risk, the authorization regime might create greater concerns

Justice committee  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

Justice committee  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

Justice committee  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.

Justice committee  That's correct for any of the purposes of proposed paragraphs 83.032(1)(b) through (g) of that provision, including not just non-governmental organizations but also, for example, the Canadian government and Canadian government officials.

Justice committee  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 t

Justice committee  To clarify, the first part of the amendment doesn't just amend the ability to issue authorization. It also amends the crime itself. The crime itself would essentially be more limited, such that, whether in Canada or abroad, an individual who gives money to an organization that ca

Justice committee  I would like to briefly elaborate. The two definitions of terrorist group are “a listed entity” or “an entity that has as one of its purposes or activities facilitating or carrying out any terrorist activity”. For example, if there were a hateful group, a white power group, tha

Justice committee  Well, the short answer is that I'm not sure where that information came from, but it's not correct, unfortunately. The power in section 83.09, as my colleague can elaborate on if you'd like, is dealing with.... I'm just looking at it now to make sure I cite it correctly: to car

Justice committee  I'm obviously not in a position to speak to what Cabinet discussed, but parliamentary committees heard other options. Specifically, there was talk about a broader exception for humanitarian assistance and the subjects to cover. That idea was put on the table. There were several a

Justice committee  I apologize. I should know that, but I will confirm that and get back to the committee. Yes, it should be there.

Justice committee  As a technical point, I would note that at issue is 83.03(b), which prohibits providing information to a terrorist group. A terrorist group then includes both listed and unlisted terrorist groups. The goal of Bill C-41 is to allow entities or organizations, if they wish to appl

Justice committee  I'll just say very briefly that other countries often have a conflation or difference between their sanctions and their criminal code regimes, so it's sometimes hard to compare. Notably, the United States Office of Foreign Assets Control, for many years, has had a lot of flexibil