SECU Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Minutes of Proceedings
The Committee resumed its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
Sophie Beecher, John Davies, Ari Slatkoff, Douglas Breithaupt and Glenn Gilmour answered questions.
Clause 108 carried on division.
On Clause 109,
Glen Motz moved, — That Bill C-59, in Clause 109, be amended by adding after line 25 on page 113 the following:“40.2 (1) Within the first four months after the commencement of each fiscal year, the Service shall submit to the Minister a report on the administrative costs of meeting the requirements imposed on the Service under the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Act and the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act for the preceding fiscal year.
(2) The Minister shall, within 15 days after a report is submitted under subsection (1), publish the report on its Internet site.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Glen Motz and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Glen Motz, Pierre Paul-Hus — 2;
NAYS: Julie Dabrusin, Pam Damoff, Matthew Dubé, Peter Fragiskatos, Michel Picard, Sven Spengemann — 6.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 109 to 111 inclusive carried severally on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Pam Damoff, Peter Fragiskatos, Michael Levitt, Michel Picard, Sven Spengemann — 5;
NAYS: Matthew Dubé, Glen Motz, Pierre Paul-Hus — 3.
At 5:48 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 6:39 p.m., the sitting resumed.
On Clause 112,
Matthew Dubé moved, — That Bill C-59, in Clause 112, be amended(a) by replacing line 8 on page 114 with the following:
“112 The long title of the”
(b) by replacing lines 13 and 14 on page 114 with the following:
“tions in order to protect Canada against threats to its security”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.
The Chair ruled that the following seven (7) amendments were consequential to the previous amendment and therefore they were also negatived:
That Bill C-59, in Clause 113, be amended(a) by replacing line 16 on page 114 with the following:
“the Act is replaced by the”
(b) by replacing lines 21 and 22 on page 114 with the following:
“ment to protect Canada and its people against threats to the security of Canada;”
That Bill C-59, in Clause 115, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 7 to 11 on page 115 with the following:
“(2) The definition activity that undermines the security of Canada in section 2 of the Act is repealed.
(3) Section 2 of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:
threat to the security of Canada”
(b) by replacing lines 20 to 23 on page 115 with the following:
“(b) changing or unduly influencing a government in Canada by force or unlawful means;
(c) espionage, sabotage or covert foreign-influenced activities;
(d) terrorism;
(e) proliferation of nuclear, chemical, radiological or biological weapons;”
(c) by replacing lines 30 and 31 on page 115 with the following:
“dermines the security of another state. (menace envers la sécurité du Canada)”
(d) by replacing lines 35 to 38 on page 115 with the following:
“sent or artistic expression is not a threat to the security of Canada unless it is carried out by an individual or a group whose intent is to threaten the security of Canada in conjunction with any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (h).”
That Bill C-59, in Clause 116, be amended
(a) by replacing line 1 on page 116 with the following:
“116 Section 3 of the Act is”
(b) by replacing line 6 on page 116 with the following:
“threats to the security of Canada.”
That Bill C-59, in Clause 117, be amended
(a) by replacing line 23 on page 116 with the following:
“(3) Paragraph 4(d) of the”
(b) by replacing line 27 on page 116 with the following:
“tecting against threats to the security”
That Bill C-59, in Clause 118, be amended by replacing lines 6 and 7 on page 117 with the following:
“another lawful authority, in respect of threats to the security of Canada; and”
That Bill C-59, in Clause 120, be amended by replacing line 31 on page 118 with the following:
“respect of threats to the security of”
That Bill C-59, in Clause 122, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 119 with the following:
“(a) relates to threats to the security”
Clause 112 carried on division.
On Clause 113,
Matthew Dubé moved, — That Bill C-59, in Clause 113, be amended by deleting lines 15 to 33 on page 114.Debate arose thereon.
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it proposed the deletion of the clause, as provided on page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Clause 113 carried on division.
On Clause 114,
Matthew Dubé moved, — That Bill C-59, in Clause 114, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 4 on page 115.Debate arose thereon.
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it proposed the deletion of the clause, as provided on page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Clause 114 carried on division.
On Clause 115,
Matthew Dubé moved, — That Bill C-59, in Clause 115, be amended by deleting lines 5 to 38 on page 115.Debate arose thereon.
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it proposed the deletion of the clause, as provided on page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-59, in Clause 115, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 7 to 11 on page 115 with the following:
“(2) The definition activity that undermines the security of Canada in section 2 of the Act is repealed.
(3) Section 2 of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:
threat to the security of Canada”
(b) by replacing lines 20 to 23 on page 115 with the following:
“(b) changing or unduly influencing a government in Canada by force or unlawful means;
(c) espionage, sabotage or covert foreign-influenced activities;
(d) terrorism;
(e) proliferation of nuclear, chemical, radiological or biological weapons;”
(c) by replacing lines 30 and 31 on page 115 with the following:
“dermines the security of another state. (menace envers la sécurité du Canada)”
(d) by replacing lines 35 to 38 on page 115 with the following:
“sent or artistic expression is not a threat to the security of Canada unless it is carried out in conjunction with an activity that is intended to cause death or bodily harm, endanger the life of an individual or cause a serious risk to public health or public safety.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Pierre Paul-Hus and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; NAYS: 6.
Clause 115 carried on division.
On Clause 116,
Matthew Dubé moved, — That Bill C-59, in Clause 116, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 6 on page 116.Debate arose thereon.
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it proposed the deletion of the clause, as provided on page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Clause 116 carried on division.
On Clause 117,
Matthew Dubé moved, — That Bill C-59, in Clause 117, be amended by deleting lines 7 to 29 on page 116.Debate arose thereon.
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it proposed the deletion of the clause, as provided on page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-59, in Clause 117, be amended
(a) by replacing line 23 on page 116 with the following:
“(3) Paragraph 4(d) of the”
(b) by replacing line 27 on page 116 with the following:
“tecting against threats to the security”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.
Clause 117 carried on division.
On Clause 118,
Matthew Dubé moved, — That Bill C-59, in Clause 118, be amended by deleting line 30 on page 116 to line 18 on page 117.Debate arose thereon.
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it proposed the deletion of the clause, as provided on page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
“Government of Canada institution must, on its own initia-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Glen Motz and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
“(a) the disclosure is necessary to the exercise of the”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-59, in Clause 118, be amended by replacing lines 3 and 4 on page 117 with the following:
“(a) the disclosure is necessary for the exercise of the recipient institution’s jurisdiction, or for the carrying out”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
“5.1 (1) A Government of Canada institution must, as soon as feasible after receiving it under section 5, destroy or return any personal information, as defined in section 3 of the Privacy Act, that is not necessary for the institution to exercise its jurisdiction, or to carry out its responsibilities, under an Act of Parliament or another lawful authority, in respect of activities that undermine the security of Canada.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the retention of the information is required by law.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in respect of any information that relates to the performance of its duties and functions under section 12 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Pam Damoff and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 1.
“6 Nothing in section 5 or 5.1 is to be construed as authorizing the collection or use of any information that is disclosed under section 5.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peter Fragiskatos and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.
Clause 118, as amended, carried on division.
On new Clause 118.1,
Peter Fragiskatos moved, — That Bill C-59 be amended by adding after line 18 on page 117 the following new clause:“118.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 7:
7.1 For greater certainty, for the purpose of paragraph 8(2)(b) of the Privacy Act, the authority in this Act to disclose information includes the authority to disclose personal information, as defined in section 3 of the Privacy Act.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peter Fragiskatos and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 1.
On Clause 119,
Matthew Dubé moved, — That Bill C-59, in Clause 119, be amended by deleting line 19 on page 117 to line 5 on page 118.Debate arose thereon.
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it proposed the deletion of the clause, as provided on page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
(a) replacing line 22 on page 117 with the following:
“9 (1) Every Government of Canada institution that discloses”
(b) replacing line 35 on page 117 to 5 on page 118 with the following:
“(2) Every Government of Canada institution that receives information under this Act must prepare and keep records that set out
(a) a description of the information;
(b) the name of the institution that disclosed it;
(c) the name or position of the head of the recipient institution — or of the person designated by the head — who received the information;
(d) the date on which it was received by the recipient institution;
(e) whether the information has been destroyed or returned under subsection 5.1(1);
(f) if the information has been destroyed under subsection 5.1(1), the date on which it was destroyed;
(g) if the information was returned under subsection 5.1(1) to the institution that disclosed it, the date on which it was returned; and
(h) any other information specified by the regulations.
(2) Section 9 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
(3) Within 30 days after the end of each calendar year, every Government of Canada institution that disclosed information under section 5 during the year and every Government of Canada institution that received such information must provide the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency with a copy of every record it prepared under subsection (1) or (2), as the case may be, with respect to the information.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Julie Dabrusin and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.
“(3) The Government of Canada institution must, on request by the Privacy Commissioner under section 34 of the Privacy Act, provide the Privacy Commissioner with a copy of any record prepared under subsection (1).”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.
Clause 119, as amended, carried on division.
On Clause 120,
Matthew Dubé moved, — That Bill C-59, in Clause 120, be amended by deleting lines 6 to 32 on page 118.Debate arose thereon.
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it proposed the deletion of the clause, as provided on page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
graph 9(1)(f) or (2)(f); and
(c) respecting the manner in which records that are required by subsection 9(1) or (2) are to be prepared and kept and specifying the period during which they are to be kept.
(2) Subsection 10(3) of the Act is replaced by the following:”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peter Fragiskatos and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-59, in Clause 120, be amended by replacing line 31 on page 118 with the following:
“respect of threats to the security of”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.
Clause 120, as amended, carried on division.
Clause 121 carried on division.
Clause 122 carried on division.
Clause 123 carried on division.
Clause 124 carried on division.
Clause 125 carried on division.
Clause 126 carried on division.
On New Clause 126.1,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-59 be amended by adding after line 11 on page 120 the following new clause:
“PART 5.1
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
126.1 Subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is replaced by the following:
72 (1) Judicial review by the Federal Court with respect to any matter — a decision, determination or order made, a measure taken or a question raised — under this Act is commenced by making an application for leave to the Court.
126.2 Paragraph 74(d) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(d) an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal may be made only if, in rendering judgment, the judge certifies that a serious question of general importance is involved and states the question.
126.3 Subsection 77(3) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(3) Once the certificate is referred, no proceeding under this Act respecting the person who is named in the certificate — other than proceedings relating to sections 82 to 82.3, 112 and 115 — may be commenced or continued until the judge determines whether the certificate is reasonable.
126.4 Section 79.1 of the Act is repealed.
126.5 Section 82.31 of the Act is repealed.
126.6 (1) Paragraphs 83(1)(c.1) and (c.2) of the Act are repealed.
(2) Subsection 83(1) of the Act is amended by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (i), by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (j) and by repealing paragraph (k).
126.7 Section 84 of the Act is replaced by the following:
84 Section 83 — other than the obligation to provide a summary — and sections 85.1 to 85.5 apply in respect of an appeal under section 79 or 82.3 and in respect of any further appeal, with any necessary modifications.
126.8 Subsection 85.4(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
85.4 (1) The Minister shall, within a period set by the judge, provide the special advocate with a copy of all information and other evidence that is provided to the judge but that is not disclosed to the permanent resident or foreign national and their counsel.
126.9 Sections 86.1 to 87.01 of the Act are replaced by the following:
87 The Minister may, during a judicial review, apply for the non-disclosure of information or other evidence. Section 83 — other than the obligations to appoint a special advocate and to provide a summary — applies in respect of the proceeding, with any necessary modifications.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
Clause 127 carried on division.
Clause 128 carried on division.
On Clause 129,
Matthew Dubé moved, — That Bill C-59, in Clause 129, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 122 with the following:“sonable grounds to believe that the person will”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.
“(1.1) Section 8 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):
(1.1) Without delay after placing a person's name on the list, the Minister must advise the person in writing.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.
The Chair ruled that the following amendment was consequential to the previous amendment and therefore it was also negatived:
That Bill C-59, in Clause 137, be amended by replacing line 29 on page 126 with the following:“(a) for the purposes of subsection 8(1.1) and sections 10 and 10.3 to 16;”
By unanimous consent, Clauses 129 to 133 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 134,
Matthew Dubé moved, — That Bill C-59, in Clause 134, be amended by replacing lines 26 to 31 on page 124 with the following:“the application within a period of 30 days after the day on which the application is received, the Minister is deemed to have decided to re-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-59, in Clause 134, be amended by replacing lines 26 to 30 on page 124 with the following:
“the application within a period of 90 days after the day on which the application is received — or within a further period of 90 days, if the Minister does not have sufficient information to make a decision and he or she notifies the applicant of the extension within the first 90-day”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
Clause 134 carried on division.
On Clause 135,
Matthew Dubé moved, — That Bill C-59, in Clause 135, be amended by adding after line 39 on page 124 the following:“(2) Subsection 16(5) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(5) If the judge finds that a decision made under section 15 is unreasonable, the judge must order that the appellant’s name be removed from the list.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-59, in Clause 135, be amended by adding after line 39 on page 124 the following:
“(2) Subsection 16(6) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (a):
(a.1) if information or other evidence is to be heard in the absence of the public and of the appellant and their counsel, the judge must appoint a special advocate to protect the interests of the appellant;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.
“(2) Subsection 16(6) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (a):
(a.1) if information or other evidence is to be heard in the absence of the public and of the appellant and their counsel, the judge must appoint a special advocate to protect the interests of the appellant;
(3) Subsection 16(7) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(7) In this section and sections 16.1 to 16.5, judge means the Chief Justice of the Federal Court or a judge of that Court designated by the Chief Justice.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.
Clause 135 carried on division.
On new Clause 135.1,
Matthew Dubé moved, — That Bill C-59 be amended by adding after line 39 on page 124 the following new clause:“135.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 17:
Report to Parliament
17.1 (1) Within 90 days after the end of each financial year, the Minister must prepare an annual report for that year on the operation of sections 8, 15 and 16 that includes
(a) the number of persons whose names are on the list established under section 8;
(b) the number of applications made under subsection 15(1) and the decision of the Minister in respect of each application; and
(c) the number of appeals made under subsection 16(2) and the decision of the judge in respect of each appeal.
(2) The report must not contain any information the disclosure of which would be injurious to national security or endanger the safety of any person.
(3) The Minister must cause the report to be tabled in each House of Parliament on any of the first 10 days on which that House is sitting after the report is completed.
(4) The Minister must publish the report on the website of the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness within 30 days after it has been tabled in both Houses of Parliament.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-59 be amended by adding after line 39 on page 124 the following new clause:
“135.1 Section 17 of the Act is replaced by the following:
16.1 (1) The special advocate referred to in paragraph 16(6)(a.1) is to be appointed by the judge from among the persons on the list established by the Minister of Justice under subsection 85(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
(2) A special advocate may challenge
(a) any claim by the Minister that the disclosure of information or other evidence would be injurious to national security or endanger the safety of any person; and
(b) the relevance, reliability and sufficiency of information or other evidence that is provided by the Minister and is not disclosed to the appellant or their counsel, and the weight to be given to the information or evidence.
16.2 A special advocate may
(a) make oral and written submissions with respect to the information and other evidence that is provided by the Minister and is not disclosed to the appellant or their counsel;
(b) participate in, and cross-examine witnesses who testify during, any part of the proceeding that is held in the absence of the public and of the appellant and their counsel; and
(c) exercise, with the judge’s authorization, any other powers that are necessary to protect the interests of the appellant.
16.3 A special advocate is not personally liable for anything they do or omit to do in good faith under section 16.1 or 16.2.
17 Sections 16 to 16.3 apply to any appeal of a decision made under section 16 and to any further appeal, with any necessary modifications.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
“135.1 Section 17 of the Act is replaced by the following:
16.1 (1) The special advocate referred to in paragraph 16(6)(a.1) is to be appointed by the judge from among the persons on the list established by the Minister of Justice under subsection 85(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
(2) A special advocate may challenge
(a) any claim by the Minister that the disclosure of information or other evidence would be injurious to national security or endanger the safety of any person; and
(b) the relevance, reliability and sufficiency of information or other evidence that is provided by the Minister and is not disclosed to the appellant or their counsel, and the weight to be given to the information or evidence.
(3) For greater certainty, the special advocate is not a party to the proceeding and the relationship between the special advocate and the appellant is not that of solicitor and client.
(4) However, a communication between the appellant or their counsel and the special advocate that would be subject to solicitor-client privilege if the relationship were one of solicitor and client is deemed to be subject to solicitor-client privilege. For greater certainty, in respect of that communication, the special advocate is not a compellable witness in any proceeding.
16.2 A special advocate may
(a) make oral and written submissions with respect to the information and other evidence that is provided by the Minister and is not disclosed to the appellant or their counsel;
(b) participate in, and cross-examine witnesses who testify during any part of the proceeding that is held in the absence of the public and of the appellant and their counsel; and
(c) exercise, with the judge’s authorization, any other powers that are necessary to protect the interests of the appellant.
16.3 A special advocate is not personally liable for anything they do or omit to do in good faith under section 16.1 or 16.2.
16.4 (1) The Minister must, within a period set by the judge,
(a) provide the special advocate with a copy of the information and other evidence that is relevant to the case made by the Minister in the proceeding, on which the addition of the appellant's name to the list is based, but that is not disclosed to the appellant or their counsel; and
(b) provide the special advocate with a copy of any other information that is in the Minister’s possession and that is relevant to the case made by the Minister in the proceeding, but on which the addition of the appellant's name to the list is not based.
(2) After that information or other evidence is received by the special advocate, the special advocate may, during the remainder of the proceeding, communicate with another person about the proceeding only with the judge’s authorization and subject to any conditions that the judge considers appropriate.
(3) If the special advocate is authorized to communicate with a person, the judge may prohibit that person from communicating with anyone else about the proceeding during the remainder of the proceeding or may impose conditions with respect to such a communication during that period.
16.5 With the exception of communications authorized by a judge, it is prohibited for any person to
(a) disclose information or other evidence that is disclosed to them under section 16.4 and that is treated as confidential by the judge presiding at the proceeding; or
(b) communicate with another person about the content of any part of the proceeding that is heard in the absence of the public and of the appellant and their counsel.
17 Sections 16 to 16.5 apply to any appeal of a decision made under section 16 and to any further appeal, with any necessary modifications.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
Clause 136 carried on division.
Clause 137 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 138 and 139 inclusive carried on division severally.
On new Clause 139.1,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-59 be amended by adding after line 27 on page 127 the following new clause:
“PART 6.1
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
139.1 Paragraphs 83(1)(c.1) and (c.2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act are repealed.
139.2 The portion of subsection 85.4(1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
85.4 (1) The Minister shall, within a period set by the judge,”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
Clause 140 carried on division.
On new Clause 140.1,
Matthew Dubé moved, — That Bill C-59 be amended by adding after line 6 on page 128 the following new clause:“140.1 (1) The definition listed entity in subsection 83.01(1) of the Act is repealed.
(2) The definition terrorist group in subsection 83.01(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
terrorist group means an entity or an association of entities that has as one of its purposes or activities facilitating or carrying out any terrorist activity. (groupe terroriste)”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.
The Chair ruled that the following twelve (12) amendments were consequential to the previous amendment and therefore they were also negatived:
That Bill C-59, in Clause 141, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 128 to line 32 on page 129 with the following:“141 Section 83.05 of the Act is repealed.”
That Bill C-59 be amended by adding after line 32 on page 129 the following new clause:
“141.1 Section 83.06 of the Act is repealed.”
That Bill C-59, in Clause 142, be amended by replacing line 33 on page 129 to line 9 on page 130 with the following:
“142 Section 83.07 of the Act is repealed.”
That Bill C-59 be amended by adding after line 9 on page 130 the following new clause:
“142.1 Subsection 83.09(4) is replaced by the following:
(4) If a person has obtained an authorization under subsection (1), any other person involved in carrying out the activity or transaction, or class of activities or transactions, to which the authorization relates is not subject to section 83.08 or 83.1 if the terms or conditions of the authorization that are imposed under subsection (2), if any, are met.”
That Bill C-59 be amended by adding after line 9 on page 130 the following new clause:
“142.1 Section 83.11 of the Act is repealed.”
That Bill C-59 be amended by adding after line 9 on page 130 the following new clause:
“142.1 The portion of subsection 83.12(1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
83.12 (1) Every one who contravenes section 83.08 or 83.1 is guilty of an offence and liable”
That Bill C-59 be amended by adding after line 15 on page 133 the following new clause:
“Consequential Amendments
Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act
154.1 Paragraph 11.11(1)(b) of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act is repealed.”
That Bill C-59 be amended by adding after line 15 on page 133 the following new clause:
“Consequential Amendments
Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act
154.1 Subparagraph 55(3)(c)(iii) of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act is repealed.”
That Bill C-59 be amended by adding after line 15 on page 133 the following new clause:
“Consequential Amendments
Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act
154.1 The definition listed entity in section 2 of the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act is repealed.”
That Bill C-59 be amended by adding after line 15 on page 133 the following new clause:
“Consequential Amendments
Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act
154.1 (1) Subsection 4(1) of the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act is replaced by the following:
4 (1) Any person that has suffered loss or damage in or outside Canada on or after January 1, 1985 as a result of an act or omission that is, or had it been committed in Canada would be, punishable under Part II.1 of the Criminal Code, may, in any court of competent jurisdiction, bring an action to recover an amount equal to the loss or damage proved to have been suffered by the person and obtain any additional amount that the court may allow, from a foreign state whose immunity is lifted under section 6.1 of the State Immunity Act or from any other person that committed the act or omission that resulted in the loss or damage.
(2) Subsection 4(2.1) of the Act is repealed.
(3) Paragraph 4(3)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(b) is unable to ascertain the identity of the person or foreign state referred to in subsection (1).”
That Bill C-59 be amended by adding after line 15 on page 133 the following new clause:
“Consequential Amendments
Charities Registration (Security Information) Act
154.1 Paragraph 4(1)(a) of the Charities Registration (Security Information) Act is repealed.”
That Bill C-59 be amended by adding after line 15 on page 133 the following new clause:
“Consequential Amendments
State Immunity Act
154.1 Section 2.1 of the State Immunity Act is repealed.”
On Clause 141,
Sven Spengemann moved, — That Bill C-59, in Clause 141, be amended by(a) replacing lines 25 to 27 on page 128 with the following:
“the applicant should remain a listed entity or whether the Minister should recommend to the Governor in Council that the applicant be removed from the list, taking into account the grounds set out in subsection (1).”
(b) replacing lines 32 and 33 on page 128 with the following:
“applicant, the Minister is deemed to have decided that the applicant should remain a listed entity.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Sven Spengemann and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 1.
“(8.1) to be published in the Canada Gazette without delay after the review is completed.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.
Clause 141, as amended, carried on division.
On new Clause 141.1,
Matthew Dubé moved, — That Bill C-59 be amended by adding after line 32 on page 129 the following new clause:“141.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 83.05:
83.051 (1) In this section and sections 83.052 and 83.053, judge has the same meaning as in subsection 83.05(11).
(2) The judge, when examining any information or evidence under paragraph 83.05(6)(a) or any information under paragraph 83.06(1)(b) in the absence of the applicant or any counsel representing the applicant shall appoint a special advocate from among the persons on the list established by the Minister of Justice under subsection 85(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to protect the interests of the applicant.
(3) The special advocate may challenge
(a) any claim by the Minister that the disclosure of evidence or information would be injurious to national security or endanger the safety of any person; and
(b) the relevance, reliability, and sufficiency of evidence or information before the judge that is not disclosed to the applicant.
(4) A special advocate may
(a) make oral and written submissions with respect to the evidence or information before the judge that is not disclosed to the applicant;
(b) participate in, and cross-examine witnesses who testify during the part of the proceeding that is held in the absence of the public and of the applicant and their counsel; and
(c) exercise, with the judge’s authorization, any other powers that are necessary to protect the interests of the applicant.
(5) The Minister shall, within a period set by the judge, provide the special advocate
(a) with a copy of evidence or information that is relevant to the case made by the Minister in the proceeding on which the inclusion of the applicant on the list is based, but which is not disclosed to the applicant or their counsel; and
(b) with a copy of any other information that is in the Minister’s possession and that is relevant to the case made by the Minister in the proceeding, but on which the inclusion of the applicant on the list is not based.
(6) After the evidence or information described in paragraphs 5(a) and (b) is received, the special advocate may, during the remainder of the proceeding, communicate with another person about the proceeding only with the judge’s authorization and subject to any conditions that the judge considers appropriate.
(7) If the special advocate is authorized to communicate with a person, the judge may prohibit that person from communicating with anyone else about the proceeding during the remainder of the proceeding or may impose conditions with respect to such a communication during that period.
(8) For greater certainty, the special advocate is not a party to the proceeding and the relationship between the special advocate and the applicant is not that of solicitor and client.
(9) Despite subsection (8), a communication between the applicant or their counsel and the special advocate that would be subject to solicitor-client privilege if the relationship were one of solicitor and client is deemed to be subject to solicitor-client privilege and, in respect of those communications, the special advocate is not a compellable witness in any proceeding.
83.052 A special advocate is not personally liable for anything they do or omit to do in good faith under sections 83.05 and 83.051.
83.053 With the exception of communications authorized by a judge, it is prohibited for any person to
(a) disclose information or other evidence that is disclosed to them under section 83.05 and that is treated as confidential by the judge presiding at the proceeding; or
(b) communicate with another person about the content of any part of a proceeding that is heard in the absence of the public and of the applicant and their counsel.
83.054 Sections 83.051 to 83.053 apply to a decision made under section 83.05 and to any review of the decision, with any necessary modifications.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
Clause 142 carried on division.
On new Clause 142.1,
Matthew Dubé moved, — That Bill C-59 be amended by adding after line 9 on page 130 the following new clause:“142.1 Section 83.08 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
(3) For greater certainty, subsection (1) is not applicable to dealings, transactions or financial or related services in respect of property if those dealings, transactions or services are related to the provision of legal services in connection with an application by the entity to no longer be a listed entity under section 83.05.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
On Clause 143,
Matthew Dubé moved, — That Bill C-59, in Clause 143, be amended by replacing lines 10 to 21 on page 130 with the following:“143 Section 83.221 of the Act is repealed.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.
The Chair ruled that the following three (3) amendments were consequential to the previous amendment and therefore they were also negatived:
That Bill C-59, in Clause 150, be amended by replacing lines 24 to 27 on page 132 with the following:“fence in section 183 of the Act is repealed.”
That Bill C-59, in Clause 152, be amended by replacing lines 36 to 38 on page 132 with the following:
“Act is repealed.”
That Bill C-59, in Clause 158, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 5 on page 134 with the following:
“repealed.”
At 8:47 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 8:57 p.m., the sitting resumed.
(a) replacing lines 13 and 14 on page 130 with the following:
“to commit a terrorism offence without identifying a specific terrorism offence is guilty of an indictable offence and”
(b) replacing lines 18 to 21 on page 130 with the following:
“whether or not a terrorism offence is committed by the person who is counselled.”
Debate arose thereon.
Pierre Paul-Hus moved, — That the Committee do now adjourn.
The question was put on the motion and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
(a) replacing lines 13 and 14 on page 130 with the following:
“to commit a terrorism offence without identifying a specific terrorism offence is guilty of an indictable offence and”
(b) replacing lines 18 to 21 on page 130 with the following:
“whether or not a terrorism offence is committed by the person who is counselled.”
The debate continued.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Pam Damoff and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 1.
Clause 143, as amended, carried on division.
On Clause 144,
Matthew Dubé moved, — That Bill C-59, in Clause 144, be amended by replacing lines 27 and 28 on page 130 with the following:“mission of a terrorism offence. (propagande terroriste)”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 1.
Clause 144, as amended, carried on division.
Clause 145 carried on division.
On Clause 146,
Glen Motz moved, — That Bill C-59, in Clause 146, be amended by deleting lines 31 to 36 on page 130.After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Glen Motz and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Glen Motz, Pierre Paul-Hus — 2;
NAYS: Julie Dabrusin, Pam Damoff, Matthew Dubé, Peter Fragiskatos, Michel Picard, Sven Spengemann — 6.
“(4) Section 83.3 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (13):
(13.1) A person has the right to retain and instruct counsel at any stage of proceedings under this section.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.
Clause 146 carried on division.
Clause 147 carried on division.
On Clause 148,
Matthew Dubé moved, — That Bill C-59, in Clause 148, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 131 to line 21 on page 132 with the following:“148 (1) Subsections 83.32(1) to (5) of the Act are replaced by the following:
83.32 Section 83.3 ceases to have effect on July 15, 2018.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.
Clause 148 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 149 to 157 inclusive carried on division severally.
On new Clause 157.1,
Michel Picard moved, — That Bill C-59 be amended by adding after line 32 on page 133 the following new clause:“Section 83.3 of the Criminal Code
157.1 If section 83.3 of the Criminal Code has ceased to have effect in accordance with section 83.32 of that Act before the day on which this section comes into force, then that section 83.3 becomes effective again as of the day on which this section comes into force and sections 146 and 148 of this Act apply in respect of that section 83.3.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Michel Picard and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
Clause 158 carried on division.
On new Clause 158.1,
Pierre Paul-Hus moved, — That Bill C-59 be amended by adding after line 5 on page 134 the following new clause:“PART 7.1
Prevention of Radicalization through Foreign Funding
Prevention of Radicalization through Foreign Funding Act
158.1 The Prevention of Radicalization through Foreign Funding Act, whose schedule is set out in the Schedule to this Act, is enacted as follows:
Whereas religious, cultural and educational institutions play a central role in the lives of many Canadians;
Whereas some foreign states and some entities and individuals abroad provide those institutions with funding through donations or gifts;
Whereas funding could flow from foreign states, entities or individuals that support or promote extremism, radicalization or terrorism and that seek to influence those institutions;
Whereas Canada’s multicultural society, democratic system and national security are threatened by such funding;
And whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes that measures must be taken to deter and prevent funding from foreign states, entities and individuals that are associated with extremism, radicalization or terrorism;
Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
Short Title
1 This Act may be cited as the Prevention of Radicalization through Foreign Funding Act.
Interpretation
2 The following definitions apply in this Act.
Canadian means a person who is a citizen within the meaning of the Citizenship Act or a corporation incorporated or continued by or under the laws of Canada or of a province. (Canadien)
entity means a corporation, trust, partnership or fund or an unincorporated association or organization. (entité)
foreign state means a country other than Canada, and includes
(a) any of its political subdivisions;
(b) its government and any of its departments, or the government or any department of any of its political subdivisions;
(c) any of its agencies or any agency of any of its political subdivisions; and
(d) any sovereign or other head of the foreign state or of any political subdivision of the foreign state while acting as such in a public capacity.
It does not include a country with which Canada is party to an extradition agreement or whose name is set out in the schedule to the Extradition Act, or a country that is designated under subsection 109.1(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. (État étranger)
institution means an entity that is engaged primarily in religious, cultural or educational activities. (institution)
Minister means the Minister of Foreign Affairs. (ministre)
radicalization means the process by which a person comes to support terrorism or extremist ideologies associated with terrorist groups. (radicalisation)
Her Majesty
3 This Act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province.
Purpose of Act
4 The purpose of this Act is to deter and prevent an individual, entity or foreign state that supports, promotes or is associated with radicalization from funding an institution through donations or gifts.
Foreign States Set Out in Schedule
5 On the recommendation of the Minister made after consultation with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Governor in Council may, by regulation, set out in the schedule the name of a foreign state if the Governor in Council is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that, in the ten-year period immediately before the recommendation is made, the foreign state
(a) has sentenced individuals to punishment based on their religious or spiritual beliefs or practices, including in relation to their renunciation of a religion;
(b) has subjected individuals to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or had laws providing for such punishment; or
(c) has engaged in, attempted to engage in or facilitated activities that promote radicalization.
6 (1) On the recommendation of the Minister, the Governor in Council may, by regulation, remove from the schedule the name of a foreign state.
(2) The Minister may recommend that the name of a foreign state be removed from the schedule only if, after consulting with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Minister is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that, in the ten-year period immediately before the recommendation is made, the foreign state did not engage in conduct referred to in any of paragraphs 5(a) to (c).
7 (1) Two years after the day on which this Act comes into force and every two years after that, the Minister, in consultation with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness,
(a) must review the schedule to determine whether there are still reasonable grounds under section 5 for the name of a foreign state to be set out in the schedule and make a recommendation to the Governor in Council as to whether it should remain set out in the schedule or be removed; and
(b) must review the schedule to determine whether there are reasonable grounds under section 5 to add the name of a foreign state to the schedule and, if so, make a recommendation to the Governor in Council that it be set out in the schedule.
(2) The review does not affect the validity of the schedule.
(3) The Minister must complete the review no later than 120 days after the day on which it is commenced. After completing the review, the Minister must, without delay, cause a notice to be published in the Canada Gazette that the review has been completed.
8 (1) On application in writing by a foreign state whose name is set out in the schedule, the Minister must, after consulting with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, decide whether there are reasonable grounds to recommend to the Governor in Council that the name of the foreign state be removed from the schedule.
(2) The Minister must, without delay, give notice to the foreign state of his or her decision.
(3) A foreign state whose name is set out in the schedule may not make another application under subsection (1) until the Minister has next completed a review under subsection 7(1), unless there has been a material change in its circumstances since it made its last application.
Prohibitions
9 (1) It is prohibited for an institution to accept or agree to accept money or other valuable consideration, including by gift, donation or bequest or legacy, knowing that it is from
(a) a foreign state whose name is set out in the schedule, a senior official of such a foreign state, a member of the official’s immediate family or an associate of the official;
(b) a foreign state whose name is set out on the list established under subsection 6.1(2) of the State Immunity Act, a senior official of such a foreign state, a member of the official’s immediate family or an associate of the official;
(c) an entity that is owned or controlled by, or acting on behalf of, a foreign state referred to in paragraph (a) or (b);
(d) a senior officer of an entity referred to in paragraph (c), a member of the officer’s immediate family or an associate of the officer;
(e) an individual or entity that has been convicted of an offence under the Special Economic Measures Act or an entity that is owned or controlled by, or acting on behalf of, such an individual or entity;
(f) an individual, entity or foreign state that has advocated or promoted genocide, as defined in subsection 318(2) of the Criminal Code, or the commission of subversive or hostile activities against Canada, or that has expressed support for a listed entity, as defined in subsection 83.01(1) of that Act;
(g) an individual or entity that has been convicted of an offence under this Act; or
(h) an individual or entity that has committed an act outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under subsection 83.221(1) of the Criminal Code.
(2) It is prohibited for an individual or entity in Canada and any Canadian outside Canada to accept or agree to accept money or other valuable consideration, including by gift, donation or bequest or legacy, knowing that it is from a foreign state, entity or individual referred to in subsection (1) and intending that it be used, or knowing that it will be used, in whole or in part, to fund activities of an institution.
(3) An offer to enter into a gratuitous contract or a contract without consideration or with a merely nominal consideration, respecting either real or personal property or immovables or movables, is deemed to be a donation for the purposes of this section if it is made by a foreign state, entity or individual referred to in subsection (1).
Offences and Punishment
10 (1) Every individual or entity that contravenes subsection 9(1) or (2) commits an offence.
(2) Every individual who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding $500,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or to both; or
(b) on summary conviction,
(i) for a first offence, to a fine not exceeding $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or to both, and
(ii) for a subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both.
(3) Every entity that commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding $500,000; or
(b) on summary conviction,
(i) for a first offence, to a fine not exceeding $50,000, and
(ii) for a subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding $100,000.
11 (1) If an entity commits an offence under this Act, any director, officer, agent or mandatary of the entity who directed, authorized, assented to, acquiesced in or participated in the commission of the offence is a party to the offence and liable on conviction to the punishment provided for by this Act for an individual who commits the offence, whether or not the entity has been prosecuted or convicted.
(2) In a prosecution for an offence under this Act, it is sufficient proof of the offence to establish that it was committed by an employee or agent or mandatary of the accused, whether or not the employee, agent or mandatary is identified or has been prosecuted for the offence, unless the accused establishes that the offence was committed without the accused’s knowledge or consent and that the accused exercised due diligence to prevent its commission.
12 Proceedings by way of summary conviction under this Act may be instituted at any time within two years after the day on which the Minister becomes aware of the acts or omissions that constitute the alleged offence.
13 (1) Any proceedings in respect of an offence under this Act may be tried and determined by the court having jurisdiction at the place in Canada where the offence was committed or at the place in Canada in which the individual or entity charged with the offence is, resides or has an office or place of business at the time of commencement of the proceedings.
(2) If a Canadian is alleged to have committed, outside Canada, an offence under this Act, any proceedings in respect of that offence may, whether or not the Canadian is in Canada, be commenced in any territorial division in Canada, and the accused may be tried and punished in respect of that offence in the same manner as if the offence had been committed in that territorial division.
(3) For greater certainty, the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to requirements that an accused appear at and be present during proceedings and the exception to those requirements apply to proceedings commenced under subsection (2) in any territorial division.
Regulations
14 The Governor in Council may make regulations
(a) specifying exceptions to the application of this Act or the regulations or a provision of this Act or the regulations, including in relation to pension payments to any individual in Canada or any Canadian outside Canada;
(b) respecting applications referred to in subsection 8(1);
(c) for the purposes of section 9, defining the terms “immediate family” and “associate”; and
(d) generally, for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this Act.”
On new Clause 158.1,
Pierre Paul-Hus moved, — That Bill C-59 be amended by adding after line 5 on page 134 the following new clause:“PART 7.1
Prevention of Radicalization through Foreign Funding
Prevention of Radicalization through Foreign Funding Act
158.1 The Prevention of Radicalization through Foreign Funding Act, whose schedule is set out in the Schedule to this Act, is enacted as follows:
Whereas religious, cultural and educational institutions play a central role in the lives of many Canadians;
Whereas some foreign states and some entities and individuals abroad provide those institutions with funding through donations or gifts;
Whereas funding could flow from foreign states, entities or individuals that support or promote extremism, radicalization or terrorism and that seek to influence those institutions;
Whereas Canada’s multicultural society, democratic system and national security are threatened by such funding;
And whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes that measures must be taken to deter and prevent funding from foreign states, entities and individuals that are associated with extremism, radicalization or terrorism;
Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
Short Title
1 This Act may be cited as the Prevention of Radicalization through Foreign Funding Act.
Interpretation
2 The following definitions apply in this Act.
Canadian means a person who is a citizen within the meaning of the Citizenship Act or a corporation incorporated or continued by or under the laws of Canada or of a province. (Canadien)
entity means a corporation, trust, partnership or fund or an unincorporated association or organization. (entité)
foreign state means a country other than Canada, and includes
(a) any of its political subdivisions;
(b) its government and any of its departments, or the government or any department of any of its political subdivisions;
(c) any of its agencies or any agency of any of its political subdivisions; and
(d) any sovereign or other head of the foreign state or of any political subdivision of the foreign state while acting as such in a public capacity.
It does not include a country with which Canada is party to an extradition agreement or whose name is set out in the schedule to the Extradition Act, or a country that is designated under subsection 109.1(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. (État étranger)
institution means an entity that is engaged primarily in religious, cultural or educational activities. (institution)
Minister means the Minister of Foreign Affairs. (ministre)
radicalization means the process by which a person comes to support terrorism or extremist ideologies associated with terrorist groups. (radicalisation)
Her Majesty
3 This Act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province.
Purpose of Act
4 The purpose of this Act is to deter and prevent an individual, entity or foreign state that supports, promotes or is associated with radicalization from funding an institution through donations or gifts.
Foreign States Set Out in Schedule
5 On the recommendation of the Minister made after consultation with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Governor in Council may, by regulation, set out in the schedule the name of a foreign state if the Governor in Council is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that, in the ten-year period immediately before the recommendation is made, the foreign state
(a) has sentenced individuals to punishment based on their religious or spiritual beliefs or practices, including in relation to their renunciation of a religion;
(b) has subjected individuals to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or had laws providing for such punishment; or
(c) has engaged in, attempted to engage in or facilitated activities that promote radicalization.
6 (1) On the recommendation of the Minister, the Governor in Council may, by regulation, remove from the schedule the name of a foreign state.
(2) The Minister may recommend that the name of a foreign state be removed from the schedule only if, after consulting with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Minister is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that, in the ten-year period immediately before the recommendation is made, the foreign state did not engage in conduct referred to in any of paragraphs 5(a) to (c).
7 (1) Two years after the day on which this Act comes into force and every two years after that, the Minister, in consultation with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness,
(a) must review the schedule to determine whether there are still reasonable grounds under section 5 for the name of a foreign state to be set out in the schedule and make a recommendation to the Governor in Council as to whether it should remain set out in the schedule or be removed; and
(b) must review the schedule to determine whether there are reasonable grounds under section 5 to add the name of a foreign state to the schedule and, if so, make a recommendation to the Governor in Council that it be set out in the schedule.
(2) The review does not affect the validity of the schedule.
(3) The Minister must complete the review no later than 120 days after the day on which it is commenced. After completing the review, the Minister must, without delay, cause a notice to be published in the Canada Gazette that the review has been completed.
8 (1) On application in writing by a foreign state whose name is set out in the schedule, the Minister must, after consulting with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, decide whether there are reasonable grounds to recommend to the Governor in Council that the name of the foreign state be removed from the schedule.
(2) The Minister must, without delay, give notice to the foreign state of his or her decision.
(3) A foreign state whose name is set out in the schedule may not make another application under subsection (1) until the Minister has next completed a review under subsection 7(1), unless there has been a material change in its circumstances since it made its last application.
Prohibitions
9 (1) It is prohibited for an institution to accept or agree to accept money or other valuable consideration, including by gift, donation or bequest or legacy, knowing that it is from
(a) a foreign state whose name is set out in the schedule, a senior official of such a foreign state, a member of the official’s immediate family or an associate of the official;
(b) a foreign state whose name is set out on the list established under subsection 6.1(2) of the State Immunity Act, a senior official of such a foreign state, a member of the official’s immediate family or an associate of the official;
(c) an entity that is owned or controlled by, or acting on behalf of, a foreign state referred to in paragraph (a) or (b);
(d) a senior officer of an entity referred to in paragraph (c), a member of the officer’s immediate family or an associate of the officer;
(e) an individual or entity that has been convicted of an offence under the Special Economic Measures Act or an entity that is owned or controlled by, or acting on behalf of, such an individual or entity;
(f) an individual, entity or foreign state that has advocated or promoted genocide, as defined in subsection 318(2) of the Criminal Code, or the commission of subversive or hostile activities against Canada, or that has expressed support for a listed entity, as defined in subsection 83.01(1) of that Act;
(g) an individual or entity that has been convicted of an offence under this Act; or
(h) an individual or entity that has committed an act outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under subsection 83.221(1) of the Criminal Code.
(2) It is prohibited for an individual or entity in Canada and any Canadian outside Canada to accept or agree to accept money or other valuable consideration, including by gift, donation or bequest or legacy, knowing that it is from a foreign state, entity or individual referred to in subsection (1) and intending that it be used, or knowing that it will be used, in whole or in part, to fund activities of an institution.
(3) An offer to enter into a gratuitous contract or a contract without consideration or with a merely nominal consideration, respecting either real or personal property or immovables or movables, is deemed to be a donation for the purposes of this section if it is made by a foreign state, entity or individual referred to in subsection (1).
Offences and Punishment
10 (1) Every individual or entity that contravenes subsection 9(1) or (2) commits an offence.
(2) Every individual who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding $500,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or to both; or
(b) on summary conviction,
(i) for a first offence, to a fine not exceeding $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or to both, and
(ii) for a subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both.
(3) Every entity that commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding $500,000; or
(b) on summary conviction,
(i) for a first offence, to a fine not exceeding $50,000, and
(ii) for a subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding $100,000.
11 (1) If an entity commits an offence under this Act, any director, officer, agent or mandatary of the entity who directed, authorized, assented to, acquiesced in or participated in the commission of the offence is a party to the offence and liable on conviction to the punishment provided for by this Act for an individual who commits the offence, whether or not the entity has been prosecuted or convicted.
(2) In a prosecution for an offence under this Act, it is sufficient proof of the offence to establish that it was committed by an employee or agent or mandatary of the accused, whether or not the employee, agent or mandatary is identified or has been prosecuted for the offence, unless the accused establishes that the offence was committed without the accused’s knowledge or consent and that the accused exercised due diligence to prevent its commission.
12 Proceedings by way of summary conviction under this Act may be instituted at any time within two years after the day on which the Minister becomes aware of the acts or omissions that constitute the alleged offence.
13 (1) Any proceedings in respect of an offence under this Act may be tried and determined by the court having jurisdiction at the place in Canada where the offence was committed or at the place in Canada in which the individual or entity charged with the offence is, resides or has an office or place of business at the time of commencement of the proceedings.
(2) If a Canadian is alleged to have committed, outside Canada, an offence under this Act, any proceedings in respect of that offence may, whether or not the Canadian is in Canada, be commenced in any territorial division in Canada, and the accused may be tried and punished in respect of that offence in the same manner as if the offence had been committed in that territorial division.
(3) For greater certainty, the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to requirements that an accused appear at and be present during proceedings and the exception to those requirements apply to proceedings commenced under subsection (2) in any territorial division.
Regulations
14 The Governor in Council may make regulations
(a) specifying exceptions to the application of this Act or the regulations or a provision of this Act or the regulations, including in relation to pension payments to any individual in Canada or any Canadian outside Canada;
(b) respecting applications referred to in subsection 8(1);
(c) for the purposes of section 9, defining the terms “immediate family” and “associate”; and
(d) generally, for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this Act.”
On new Clause 158.1,
Pierre Paul-Hus moved, — That Bill C-59 be amended by adding after line 5 on page 134 the following new clause:“PART 7.1
Prevention of Radicalization through Foreign Funding
Prevention of Radicalization through Foreign Funding Act
158.1 The Prevention of Radicalization through Foreign Funding Act, whose schedule is set out in the Schedule to this Act, is enacted as follows:
Whereas religious, cultural and educational institutions play a central role in the lives of many Canadians;
Whereas some foreign states and some entities and individuals abroad provide those institutions with funding through donations or gifts;
Whereas funding could flow from foreign states, entities or individuals that support or promote extremism, radicalization or terrorism and that seek to influence those institutions;
Whereas Canada’s multicultural society, democratic system and national security are threatened by such funding;
And whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes that measures must be taken to deter and prevent funding from foreign states, entities and individuals that are associated with extremism, radicalization or terrorism;
Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
Short Title
1 This Act may be cited as the Prevention of Radicalization through Foreign Funding Act.
Interpretation
2 The following definitions apply in this Act.
Canadian means a person who is a citizen within the meaning of the Citizenship Act or a corporation incorporated or continued by or under the laws of Canada or of a province. (Canadien)
entity means a corporation, trust, partnership or fund or an unincorporated association or organization. (entité)
foreign state means a country other than Canada, and includes
(a) any of its political subdivisions;
(b) its government and any of its departments, or the government or any department of any of its political subdivisions;
(c) any of its agencies or any agency of any of its political subdivisions; and
(d) any sovereign or other head of the foreign state or of any political subdivision of the foreign state while acting as such in a public capacity.
It does not include a country with which Canada is party to an extradition agreement or whose name is set out in the schedule to the Extradition Act, or a country that is designated under subsection 109.1(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. (État étranger)
institution means an entity that is engaged primarily in religious, cultural or educational activities. (institution)
Minister means the Minister of Foreign Affairs. (ministre)
radicalization means the process by which a person comes to support terrorism or extremist ideologies associated with terrorist groups. (radicalisation)
Her Majesty
3 This Act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province.
Purpose of Act
4 The purpose of this Act is to deter and prevent an individual, entity or foreign state that supports, promotes or is associated with radicalization from funding an institution through donations or gifts.
Foreign States Set Out in Schedule
5 On the recommendation of the Minister made after consultation with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Governor in Council may, by regulation, set out in the schedule the name of a foreign state if the Governor in Council is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that, in the ten-year period immediately before the recommendation is made, the foreign state
(a) has sentenced individuals to punishment based on their religious or spiritual beliefs or practices, including in relation to their renunciation of a religion;
(b) has subjected individuals to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or had laws providing for such punishment; or
(c) has engaged in, attempted to engage in or facilitated activities that promote radicalization.
6 (1) On the recommendation of the Minister, the Governor in Council may, by regulation, remove from the schedule the name of a foreign state.
(2) The Minister may recommend that the name of a foreign state be removed from the schedule only if, after consulting with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Minister is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that, in the ten-year period immediately before the recommendation is made, the foreign state did not engage in conduct referred to in any of paragraphs 5(a) to (c).
7 (1) Two years after the day on which this Act comes into force and every two years after that, the Minister, in consultation with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness,
(a) must review the schedule to determine whether there are still reasonable grounds under section 5 for the name of a foreign state to be set out in the schedule and make a recommendation to the Governor in Council as to whether it should remain set out in the schedule or be removed; and
(b) must review the schedule to determine whether there are reasonable grounds under section 5 to add the name of a foreign state to the schedule and, if so, make a recommendation to the Governor in Council that it be set out in the schedule.
(2) The review does not affect the validity of the schedule.
(3) The Minister must complete the review no later than 120 days after the day on which it is commenced. After completing the review, the Minister must, without delay, cause a notice to be published in the Canada Gazette that the review has been completed.
8 (1) On application in writing by a foreign state whose name is set out in the schedule, the Minister must, after consulting with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, decide whether there are reasonable grounds to recommend to the Governor in Council that the name of the foreign state be removed from the schedule.
(2) The Minister must, without delay, give notice to the foreign state of his or her decision.
(3) A foreign state whose name is set out in the schedule may not make another application under subsection (1) until the Minister has next completed a review under subsection 7(1), unless there has been a material change in its circumstances since it made its last application.
Prohibitions
9 (1) It is prohibited for an institution to accept or agree to accept money or other valuable consideration, including by gift, donation or bequest or legacy, knowing that it is from
(a) a foreign state whose name is set out in the schedule, a senior official of such a foreign state, a member of the official’s immediate family or an associate of the official;
(b) a foreign state whose name is set out on the list established under subsection 6.1(2) of the State Immunity Act, a senior official of such a foreign state, a member of the official’s immediate family or an associate of the official;
(c) an entity that is owned or controlled by, or acting on behalf of, a foreign state referred to in paragraph (a) or (b);
(d) a senior officer of an entity referred to in paragraph (c), a member of the officer’s immediate family or an associate of the officer;
(e) an individual or entity that has been convicted of an offence under the Special Economic Measures Act or an entity that is owned or controlled by, or acting on behalf of, such an individual or entity;
(f) an individual, entity or foreign state that has advocated or promoted genocide, as defined in subsection 318(2) of the Criminal Code, or the commission of subversive or hostile activities against Canada, or that has expressed support for a listed entity, as defined in subsection 83.01(1) of that Act;
(g) an individual or entity that has been convicted of an offence under this Act; or
(h) an individual or entity that has committed an act outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under subsection 83.221(1) of the Criminal Code.
(2) It is prohibited for an individual or entity in Canada and any Canadian outside Canada to accept or agree to accept money or other valuable consideration, including by gift, donation or bequest or legacy, knowing that it is from a foreign state, entity or individual referred to in subsection (1) and intending that it be used, or knowing that it will be used, in whole or in part, to fund activities of an institution.
(3) An offer to enter into a gratuitous contract or a contract without consideration or with a merely nominal consideration, respecting either real or personal property or immovables or movables, is deemed to be a donation for the purposes of this section if it is made by a foreign state, entity or individual referred to in subsection (1).
Offences and Punishment
10 (1) Every individual or entity that contravenes subsection 9(1) or (2) commits an offence.
(2) Every individual who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding $500,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or to both; or
(b) on summary conviction,
(i) for a first offence, to a fine not exceeding $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or to both, and
(ii) for a subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both.
(3) Every entity that commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding $500,000; or
(b) on summary conviction,
(i) for a first offence, to a fine not exceeding $50,000, and
(ii) for a subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding $100,000.
11 (1) If an entity commits an offence under this Act, any director, officer, agent or mandatary of the entity who directed, authorized, assented to, acquiesced in or participated in the commission of the offence is a party to the offence and liable on conviction to the punishment provided for by this Act for an individual who commits the offence, whether or not the entity has been prosecuted or convicted.
(2) In a prosecution for an offence under this Act, it is sufficient proof of the offence to establish that it was committed by an employee or agent or mandatary of the accused, whether or not the employee, agent or mandatary is identified or has been prosecuted for the offence, unless the accused establishes that the offence was committed without the accused’s knowledge or consent and that the accused exercised due diligence to prevent its commission.
12 Proceedings by way of summary conviction under this Act may be instituted at any time within two years after the day on which the Minister becomes aware of the acts or omissions that constitute the alleged offence.
13 (1) Any proceedings in respect of an offence under this Act may be tried and determined by the court having jurisdiction at the place in Canada where the offence was committed or at the place in Canada in which the individual or entity charged with the offence is, resides or has an office or place of business at the time of commencement of the proceedings.
(2) If a Canadian is alleged to have committed, outside Canada, an offence under this Act, any proceedings in respect of that offence may, whether or not the Canadian is in Canada, be commenced in any territorial division in Canada, and the accused may be tried and punished in respect of that offence in the same manner as if the offence had been committed in that territorial division.
(3) For greater certainty, the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to requirements that an accused appear at and be present during proceedings and the exception to those requirements apply to proceedings commenced under subsection (2) in any territorial division.
Regulations
14 The Governor in Council may make regulations
(a) specifying exceptions to the application of this Act or the regulations or a provision of this Act or the regulations, including in relation to pension payments to any individual in Canada or any Canadian outside Canada;
(b) respecting applications referred to in subsection 8(1);
(c) for the purposes of section 9, defining the terms “immediate family” and “associate”; and
(d) generally, for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this Act.”
On new Clause 158.1,
Pierre Paul-Hus moved, — That Bill C-59 be amended by adding after line 5 on page 134 the following new clause:“PART 7.1
Prevention of Radicalization through Foreign Funding
Prevention of Radicalization through Foreign Funding Act
158.1 The Prevention of Radicalization through Foreign Funding Act, whose schedule is set out in the Schedule to this Act, is enacted as follows:
Whereas religious, cultural and educational institutions play a central role in the lives of many Canadians;
Whereas some foreign states and some entities and individuals abroad provide those institutions with funding through donations or gifts;
Whereas funding could flow from foreign states, entities or individuals that support or promote extremism, radicalization or terrorism and that seek to influence those institutions;
Whereas Canada’s multicultural society, democratic system and national security are threatened by such funding;
And whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes that measures must be taken to deter and prevent funding from foreign states, entities and individuals that are associated with extremism, radicalization or terrorism;
Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
Short Title
1 This Act may be cited as the Prevention of Radicalization through Foreign Funding Act.
Interpretation
2 The following definitions apply in this Act.
Canadian means a person who is a citizen within the meaning of the Citizenship Act or a corporation incorporated or continued by or under the laws of Canada or of a province. (Canadien)
entity means a corporation, trust, partnership or fund or an unincorporated association or organization. (entité)
foreign state means a country other than Canada, and includes
(a) any of its political subdivisions;
(b) its government and any of its departments, or the government or any department of any of its political subdivisions;
(c) any of its agencies or any agency of any of its political subdivisions; and
(d) any sovereign or other head of the foreign state or of any political subdivision of the foreign state while acting as such in a public capacity.
It does not include a country with which Canada is party to an extradition agreement or whose name is set out in the schedule to the Extradition Act, or a country that is designated under subsection 109.1(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. (État étranger)
institution means an entity that is engaged primarily in religious, cultural or educational activities. (institution)
Minister means the Minister of Foreign Affairs. (ministre)
radicalization means the process by which a person comes to support terrorism or extremist ideologies associated with terrorist groups. (radicalisation)
Her Majesty
3 This Act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province.
Purpose of Act
4 The purpose of this Act is to deter and prevent an individual, entity or foreign state that supports, promotes or is associated with radicalization from funding an institution through donations or gifts.
Foreign States Set Out in Schedule
5 On the recommendation of the Minister made after consultation with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Governor in Council may, by regulation, set out in the schedule the name of a foreign state if the Governor in Council is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that, in the ten-year period immediately before the recommendation is made, the foreign state
(a) has sentenced individuals to punishment based on their religious or spiritual beliefs or practices, including in relation to their renunciation of a religion;
(b) has subjected individuals to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or had laws providing for such punishment; or
(c) has engaged in, attempted to engage in or facilitated activities that promote radicalization.
6 (1) On the recommendation of the Minister, the Governor in Council may, by regulation, remove from the schedule the name of a foreign state.
(2) The Minister may recommend that the name of a foreign state be removed from the schedule only if, after consulting with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Minister is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that, in the ten-year period immediately before the recommendation is made, the foreign state did not engage in conduct referred to in any of paragraphs 5(a) to (c).
7 (1) Two years after the day on which this Act comes into force and every two years after that, the Minister, in consultation with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness,
(a) must review the schedule to determine whether there are still reasonable grounds under section 5 for the name of a foreign state to be set out in the schedule and make a recommendation to the Governor in Council as to whether it should remain set out in the schedule or be removed; and
(b) must review the schedule to determine whether there are reasonable grounds under section 5 to add the name of a foreign state to the schedule and, if so, make a recommendation to the Governor in Council that it be set out in the schedule.
(2) The review does not affect the validity of the schedule.
(3) The Minister must complete the review no later than 120 days after the day on which it is commenced. After completing the review, the Minister must, without delay, cause a notice to be published in the Canada Gazette that the review has been completed.
8 (1) On application in writing by a foreign state whose name is set out in the schedule, the Minister must, after consulting with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, decide whether there are reasonable grounds to recommend to the Governor in Council that the name of the foreign state be removed from the schedule.
(2) The Minister must, without delay, give notice to the foreign state of his or her decision.
(3) A foreign state whose name is set out in the schedule may not make another application under subsection (1) until the Minister has next completed a review under subsection 7(1), unless there has been a material change in its circumstances since it made its last application.
Prohibitions
9 (1) It is prohibited for an institution to accept or agree to accept money or other valuable consideration, including by gift, donation or bequest or legacy, knowing that it is from
(a) a foreign state whose name is set out in the schedule, a senior official of such a foreign state, a member of the official’s immediate family or an associate of the official;
(b) a foreign state whose name is set out on the list established under subsection 6.1(2) of the State Immunity Act, a senior official of such a foreign state, a member of the official’s immediate family or an associate of the official;
(c) an entity that is owned or controlled by, or acting on behalf of, a foreign state referred to in paragraph (a) or (b);
(d) a senior officer of an entity referred to in paragraph (c), a member of the officer’s immediate family or an associate of the officer;
(e) an individual or entity that has been convicted of an offence under the Special Economic Measures Act or an entity that is owned or controlled by, or acting on behalf of, such an individual or entity;
(f) an individual, entity or foreign state that has advocated or promoted genocide, as defined in subsection 318(2) of the Criminal Code, or the commission of subversive or hostile activities against Canada, or that has expressed support for a listed entity, as defined in subsection 83.01(1) of that Act;
(g) an individual or entity that has been convicted of an offence under this Act; or
(h) an individual or entity that has committed an act outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under subsection 83.221(1) of the Criminal Code.
(2) It is prohibited for an individual or entity in Canada and any Canadian outside Canada to accept or agree to accept money or other valuable consideration, including by gift, donation or bequest or legacy, knowing that it is from a foreign state, entity or individual referred to in subsection (1) and intending that it be used, or knowing that it will be used, in whole or in part, to fund activities of an institution.
(3) An offer to enter into a gratuitous contract or a contract without consideration or with a merely nominal consideration, respecting either real or personal property or immovables or movables, is deemed to be a donation for the purposes of this section if it is made by a foreign state, entity or individual referred to in subsection (1).
Offences and Punishment
10 (1) Every individual or entity that contravenes subsection 9(1) or (2) commits an offence.
(2) Every individual who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding $500,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or to both; or
(b) on summary conviction,
(i) for a first offence, to a fine not exceeding $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or to both, and
(ii) for a subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both.
(3) Every entity that commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding $500,000; or
(b) on summary conviction,
(i) for a first offence, to a fine not exceeding $50,000, and
(ii) for a subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding $100,000.
11 (1) If an entity commits an offence under this Act, any director, officer, agent or mandatary of the entity who directed, authorized, assented to, acquiesced in or participated in the commission of the offence is a party to the offence and liable on conviction to the punishment provided for by this Act for an individual who commits the offence, whether or not the entity has been prosecuted or convicted.
(2) In a prosecution for an offence under this Act, it is sufficient proof of the offence to establish that it was committed by an employee or agent or mandatary of the accused, whether or not the employee, agent or mandatary is identified or has been prosecuted for the offence, unless the accused establishes that the offence was committed without the accused’s knowledge or consent and that the accused exercised due diligence to prevent its commission.
12 Proceedings by way of summary conviction under this Act may be instituted at any time within two years after the day on which the Minister becomes aware of the acts or omissions that constitute the alleged offence.
13 (1) Any proceedings in respect of an offence under this Act may be tried and determined by the court having jurisdiction at the place in Canada where the offence was committed or at the place in Canada in which the individual or entity charged with the offence is, resides or has an office or place of business at the time of commencement of the proceedings.
(2) If a Canadian is alleged to have committed, outside Canada, an offence under this Act, any proceedings in respect of that offence may, whether or not the Canadian is in Canada, be commenced in any territorial division in Canada, and the accused may be tried and punished in respect of that offence in the same manner as if the offence had been committed in that territorial division.
(3) For greater certainty, the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to requirements that an accused appear at and be present during proceedings and the exception to those requirements apply to proceedings commenced under subsection (2) in any territorial division.
Regulations
14 The Governor in Council may make regulations
(a) specifying exceptions to the application of this Act or the regulations or a provision of this Act or the regulations, including in relation to pension payments to any individual in Canada or any Canadian outside Canada;
(b) respecting applications referred to in subsection 8(1);
(c) for the purposes of section 9, defining the terms “immediate family” and “associate”; and
(d) generally, for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this Act.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Pierre Paul-Hus and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Glen Motz, Pierre Paul-Hus — 2;
NAYS: Julie Dabrusin, Pam Damoff, Matthew Dubé, Peter Fragiskatos, Michel Picard, Sven Spengemann — 6.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Pierre Paul-Hus and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Glen Motz, Pierre Paul-Hus — 2;
NAYS: Julie Dabrusin, Pam Damoff, Matthew Dubé, Peter Fragiskatos, Michel Picard, Sven Spengemann — 6.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Pierre Paul-Hus and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Glen Motz, Pierre Paul-Hus — 2;
NAYS: Julie Dabrusin, Pam Damoff, Matthew Dubé, Peter Fragiskatos, Michel Picard, Sven Spengemann — 6.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Pierre Paul-Hus and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Glen Motz, Pierre Paul-Hus — 2;
NAYS: Julie Dabrusin, Pam Damoff, Matthew Dubé, Peter Fragiskatos, Michel Picard, Sven Spengemann — 6.
The Chair ruled that the following two (2) amendments were consequential to the previous amendment and therefore they were also negatived:
That Bill C-59 be amended by adding after line 5 on page 134 the following new clause:“Related Amendments to the Income Tax Act
158.2 (1) The definition relevant offence in subsection 149.1(1) of the Income Tax Act is amended by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (a), by adding “or” at the end of paragraph (b) and by adding the following after paragraph (b):
(c) is punishable under the Prevention of Radicalization through Foreign Funding Act; (infraction pertinente)
(2) Subsection 149.1(4.1) of the Act is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (e), by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (f) and by adding the following after paragraph (f):
(g) of a registered charity, if it accepts a gift from a foreign state set out in the schedule to the Prevention of Radicalization through Foreign Funding Act or from an individual or entity referred to in subsection 9(1) of that Act.
(3) Subsection 149.1(25) of the Act is amended by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (b), by adding “or” at the end of paragraph (c) and by adding the following after paragraph (c):
(d) the charity or association has accepted a gift from a foreign state set out in the schedule to the Prevention of Radicalization through Foreign Funding Act or from an individual or entity referred to in subsection 9(1) of that Act.”
That Bill C-59 be amended by adding after line 24 on page 138 the following new schedule:
“SCHEDULE
(Section 158.1)
SCHEDULE
(Sections 5 to 9)
Foreign States”
By unanimous consent, Clauses 159 to 167 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 168,
Matthew Dubé moved, — That Bill C-59, in Clause 168, be amended(a) by replacing line 25 on page 136 with the following:
“168 (1) During the fourth year after this section”
(b) by replacing line 33 on page 136 to line 1 on page 137 with the following:
“the review is undertaken, submit a report on the review to the”
(c) by replacing line 30 on page 137 with the following:
“during the fourth year after the day on which”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-59, in Clause 168, be amended
(a) by replacing line 25 on page 136 with the following:
“168 (1) During the fourth year after this section”
(b) by replacing line 30 on page 137 with the following:
“during the fourth year after the day on which”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 5.
Clause 168 carried on division.
Clause 169 carried on division.
On new Clause 169.1,
Peter Fragiskatos moved, — That Bill C-59 be amended by adding after line 38 on page 137 the following new clause:“169.1 Part 1.1, other than section 49.2, comes into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Peter Fragiskatos and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 1.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 170 to 173 inclusive carried on division severally.
Clause 1, Short Title, carried on division.
On Preamble,
Michel Picard moved, — That Bill C-59, in the preamble, be amended by adding after line 12 on page 1 the following:“Whereas the Government of Canada, by carrying out its national security and information activities in a manner that respects rights and freedoms, encourages the international community to do the same;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Michel Picard and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 1.
The Preamble, as amended, carried on division.
The Title carried on division.
The Bill, as amended, carried on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Julie Dabrusin, Pam Damoff, Peter Fragiskatos, Michel Picard, Sven Spengemann — 5;
NAYS: Matthew Dubé, Glen Motz, Pierre Paul-Hus — 3.
ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
ORDERED, — That Bill C-59, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House at report stage.
At 9:49 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.