An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

How it changed on the way

34% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (3,605 words introduced, 3,668 passed). A committee amended it.

moderate changeintent mostly kept

The bill kept its core regime allowing the Public Safety Minister to authorize certain activities in areas controlled by terrorist groups. It added new exceptions, wording on intent, shorter timelines, and extra reporting rules.

• Added mental element and justification language to both offences.

  Before: “who, directly or indirectly, collects property or provides, invites a person to provide or makes available property or financial or other related services, intending that they be used, or knowing that they will be used, in whole or in part, for the purpose of facilitating or carrying out any terrorist activity, or for the purpose of benefiting any person who is facilitating or carrying out such an activity.”

  After: “who, directly or indirectly, wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, collects property or provides, invites a person to provide or makes available property or financial or other related services, intending that they be used, or knowing that they will be used, in whole or in part, for the purpose of facilitating or carrying out any terrorist activity, or for the purpose of benefiting any person who is facilitating or carrying out such an activity.”

• Inserted a new exception for humanitarian assistance activities by impartial organizations.

  After: “Exception — humanitarian assistance activities (4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a person who carries out any of the acts referred to in those subsections for the sole purpose of carrying out humanitarian assistance activities conducted under the auspices of impartial humanitarian organizations in accordance with international law while using reasonable efforts to minimize any benefit to terrorist groups.”

• Shortened the waiting period before a refused applicant may reapply.

  Before: “until the end of the 180th day after the day on which the notice is given, unless the Minister who gave the notice is satisfied that there has been a material change of circumstances.”

  After: “until the end of the 30th day after the day on which the notice is given, unless the Minister who gave the notice is satisfied that there has been a material change of circumstances.”

• Shortened the annual report deadline and added requirements on application numbers and redactions.

  Before: “within 180 days after the first day of January of every year, a report on the operation of sections 83.031 to 83.0391 for the previous calendar year.”

  After: “within 90 days after the first day of January of every year, a report on the operation of sections 83.031 to 83.0391 for the previous calendar year.”

How precisely it is written

vagueChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Moderate

The bill relies heavily on ministerial opinions, subjective assessments of risk and need, and open-ended factors rather than fixed objective criteria. This leaves wide room for argument over what activities require authorization and whether an authorization should be granted or refused.

Open to argument

• “in the opinion of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, there is no obstacle in international law to granting the authorization”

  Uses a minister's subjective legal opinion as a gate instead of an objective test.

• “any other factor that the Public Safety Minister considers appropriate in the circumstances”

  Grants unlimited discretion to add new criteria not listed in the statute.

• “exerts sufficient influence over the area such that the carrying out, in the area, of an activity involving property or financial or other related services could reasonably be expected to result in the terrorist group using or benefiting”

  Vague standard of 'sufficient influence' and 'reasonably be expected' invites prolonged factual disputes.

Clear-cut

• “liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years”

  Fixed maximum penalty provides a clear numeric limit.

• “valid for the period of not more than five years that is specified in the authorization”

  Numeric outer bound on validity period.

• “not permitted to make a new application in respect of the same activity until the end of the 30th day after the day on which the notice is given”

  Specific waiting period stated in days.

Discretion. Ministers decide eligibility, referrals, security reviews, terms and conditions, whether to grant or refuse, and what factors count as 'appropriate,' with almost no statutory limits on those choices.

Challenging the law itself. Broad discretion and subjective standards such as 'in the opinion of' and 'considers appropriate' make the regime vulnerable to vagueness and overbreadth challenges under s. 7 of the Charter.

Disputing a charge under it. A person accused of breaching s. 83.03 can argue that their activity fell within the humanitarian exception or that an authorization should have been granted, but the many discretionary gates make such disputes fact-intensive.

Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.