Proceedings of the Special Senate Committee on the
Subject Matter of Bill C-36

Issue 2 - Evidence (evening sitting)

The Special Senate Committee on the Subject Matter of Bill C-36 met this day at 6:57 p.m. to examine the subject matter of Bill C-36, to amend the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other Acts, and to enact measures respecting the registration of charities, in order to combat terrorism and explore the protection of human rights and civil liberties in the application of this Act.

Senator Joyce Fairbairn (Chairman) in the Chair.

The Chairman: Honourable senators, we are now in our final session of the day on the subject matter of Bill C-36, which is the anti-terrorist bill that has come to us as a result of the tragic events that took place last month in the United States.

The Senate is engaged in a rarely used procedure called "pre-study." That means that we are holding hearings and listening to witnesses, and will make recommendations to the House of Commons that we hope will be reflected in their bill before they pass it and send it over to us, where again, it will be debated and studied by this committee. We are making an advance effort on some of the concerns we already have about the bill.

We have been hearing from a wide variety of witnesses today, and we are pleased this evening to have with us Patrick Johnston, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Centre for Philanthropy. Mr. Johnston is here to talk to us about the effect that the proposed legislation may have on philanthropic efforts and charitable donations. This has been of great interest in the few days since the bill was made public. We are pleased to have you here tonight.

Mr. Patrick Johnston, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Centre for Philanthropy: Honourable senators, thank you for the invitation to join you this evening. I apologize in advance for the fact that I will have to leave at about 8:00. With the cutbacks in Air Canada service, the last plane to Toronto is at 9:00 p.m., and I must be on that plane. However, we have a good period of time to have a useful discussion, I hope.

I should also explain that although our legal counsel has instructed me as best as he could on some of the intricacies of the proposed legislation, I am not a lawyer myself, and some of the specific provisions of the bill sometimes escape me, but I shall do my best to present the position of the Canadian Centre for Philanthropy.

I should just perhaps explain that the Canadian Centre for Philanthropy is a national network of 1100 organizations, all of which are charities. By and large, they are small, community-based charities. Our members operate in all ten provinces and all three territories.

The provisions of the bill that relate to charities and fundraising obviously are of particular interest to my organization and our members. In fact, we did intervene in some of the discussions on Bill C-16 and submitted a letter to the Solicitor General in March conveying some of our concerns about that proposed legislation.

I am here tonight, however, to say that in large measure, the broader provisions of Bill C-36 have now addressed the concerns that we conveyed to the minister. Let me briefly summarize what some of those concerns were, and the corollary, why, in particular, we support certain provisions of this proposed legislation.

Our view of Bill C-16 as very limited in nature stemmed from the sense that those Canadians who have an interest in providing financial support for terrorist activities are not motivated to do so by the tax receipt they will receive for contributing to a registered charity. That is not the motivator. That is not the driver.

We were concerned that Bill C-16 only focused on fundraising for terrorist activities as it was being undertaken by formally registered charitable organizations. Our argument at the time was that we felt that there should be a much broader net cast, that fundraising for terrorist activities should be criminalized and broadened to cover any individual or organization that raises funds for terrorist purposes, whether or not it is done under the auspices of a formally registered charitable organization.

We are supportive of this bill because, in effect, it does recognize that fundraising for terrorist activities can be done in a variety of ways. We argued for that broader perspective that we now see in Bill C-36 and which we support. We argued as well that what was missing in Bill C-16 was any definition of what would constitute a terrorist activity, and that is included in this bill.

Finally, our real concern about Bill C-16 was that it assumed that the only fundraising for terrorist activities going on was being done by charitable organizations registered with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. We felt that it could unfairly taint the registration of all Canadian charities. There is often a spillover effect from a scandal affecting an individual charitable organization that can taint the image of all charities. Again, we were concerned about the narrow focus and limitations of Bill C-16. Therefore, we are supportive of a number of the provisions in Bill C-36 because they do recognize and understand that fundraising for terrorist activities will take place in a variety of forms and guises - by individuals, by formal organizations, informal organizations - and not simply by registered charities.

Having said that, we do have some concerns about the current bill. Let me identify two of those concerns in particular. To the extent that we understand the proposed legislation, it appears to us that for those organizations that may be subject to Part 6 of the bill, which deals with registration of charities and security and information, there is no requirement for intentionality or knowledge. In other words, it does not explicitly indicate that the organization subject to that provision should have knowledge of, and have been intending to, support fundraising for terrorist activities.

We have some concerns about the absence of any commentary on intentionality or knowledge, because it is conceivable to us that a community-based registered charity, a neighbourhood house, for example, or a settlement house providing a range of services to immigrants and refugees, could be providing assistance to a person ultimately connected to some sort of terrorist network. The organization would have had no prior knowledge of that. It was not intending to provide any kind of assistance, directly or indirectly, to anyone involved with a terrorist organization.

We do not believe that those kinds of circumstances are the intended target of this bill; however, we are concerned that without addressing the issue of intentionality or knowledge, there is a potential for that to happen.

Our second concern has to do with due process procedures. In particular, we have some concern about those provisions of the proposed legislation that would appear to limit access to information about the reasons why a judge approved the issuance of a certificate to deny or revoke charitable status. As we read the bill, it would appear that the judge would have the right, essentially, to withhold that information from the charity or the applicant, or the charity's counsel. There may be some provisions for a summary of that information. However, given that the revocation of charitable status has extremely significant implications, we are worried about that limitation.

It also occurs to us that it is not inconceivable that a foreign government, for its own particular political purposes, could provide information through security sources denouncing an organization that was causing them some grief or problem on a particular issue as a terrorist organization. Unless that information became known to that charitable organization, it would have no opportunity to counter that. We are concerned about the potential for that to happen. It is those two provisions in the proposed legislation about which we have some particular concerns.

I will close by reiterating that for the most part, we are supportive of the provisions in the proposed legislation that deal with the issue of fundraising for terrorist activities, because they do address some of the shortcomings that we identified in Bill C-16.

I do wish to reiterate, however, that it is our view that a good portion of the fundraising that might be undertaken by individuals or organizations in Canada in support of terrorist activities will be done in invisible ways. I was saying to someone yesterday that the dumbest way to go about trying to raise funds for terrorist activities is through charitable organizations, because the authorities know them. They have an address. They know where to find you.

The one thing that we have discovered, to our horror, about the operations of the terrorist groups that are the reason that we are here today, is that they very much operate below the radar screens. They operate in completely invisible ways.

It seems to me that for most individuals or organizations involved in terrorism, the notion of doing it through a registered charity would be seen pretty much as an oxymoron. That is not the way they will undertake most of their fundraising. However, if any organizations with charitable status are engaging in fundraising for terrorist activities, their registration should be revoked.

We want to re-emphasize that we do not believe that that is where much of the real activity takes place. It will be off the radar screens, and invisible to most of us.

Madam Chair, those are my opening comments. I would be happy to respond to any questions. I will try to keep my comments to those provisions of the bill that deal with charities. I do not feel I have the expertise to comment on many of the other issues.

Senator Beaudoin: We are concerned with this proposed legislation, which, to a great extent but not exclusively, is concerned with criminal law. One of the rules of criminal law is that it must be precise. There is also a protection for every citizen called the mens rea, that is, the intention to do something.

I understand that your two concerns focus on the definitions and the due process. As a preliminary remark, you said that Bill C-16 was reconsidered in the spring and that you are satisfied with what has taken place since. You are not worried about Bill C-16; is that right?

Mr. Johnston: That is right.

Senator Beaudoin: I agree with you. I think that if we have some concerns with the definition of due process, then this is the time to correct it. A definition is always difficult. Could you refer us to something specific in the bill about the definition and the issue of due process? In my opinion, those two problems are fundamental.

Mr. Johnston: Senator Beaudoin, the particular provisions to which I would refer are found in Part 6 of the proposed legislation and have to do with clause 6. That is found on page 132 of the bill.

It seems to me that it would be in that clause, to the extent possible, that there might be some refinement of the language on intent or knowledge. I am not a draftsperson or a lawyer, thus I could not suggest specific wording. It would appear to me that somewhere in there, there might be an opportunity to clarify that we are trying here to identify those organizations that willingly, knowingly and with intent, are supporting activities to raise funds for terrorist purposes. That is the first particular concern that we had.

As to the due process provisions, to be honest with you, I am not sure exactly where they are found in the bill. There may be a couple of paragraphs in Part 6 that address that issue.

Senator Beaudoin: You are not satisfied that we have the due process of law, legally speaking, of course; is that correct?

Mr. Johnston: That is correct.

I am sorry, sir, I was mistaken. Clause 4 would be the appropriate place to revise language on intentionality or knowledge. It is clause 6 that deals with our concerns about due process. This is where it would appear to indicate that the judge is not required to disclose any information in the application to the minister for the certificate to the charity, the charity's counsel or the applicant.

Senator Beaudoin: You have to distinguish very clearly between "charity" and "terrorism."

Mr. Johnston: Yes.

Senator Beaudoin: It cannot be too precise, if I may say so.

Mr. Johnston: Right.

Senator Beaudoin: It is not sufficient, I think, to ignore the presence of some terrorism provisions. In other words, because it is criminal law, it must be very clear. If you have any concerns, then you must point to the exact wording. That is the only thing I will say at this stage. You cannot take a calculated risk. Once it is written, it is written.

I remember the discussion we had a few hours ago on this matter. If this committee is not satisfied with the definition, then we have to say that in our report of this pre-study. We will have to try to find the proper wording.

If you have something in mind, please put it on paper and we can phrase it in legal terms afterwards.

Mr. Johnston: Senator, I may take you up on that offer. I had an opportunity to get a briefing from our legal counsel only yesterday. We are still working through some of this ourselves. However, I will ask him. In fact, I will extend that invitation to him to provide, perhaps, some alternative wording that would address our specific concerns about both those provisions.

Senator Beaudoin: Your intention may be good enough. The drafting is another matter, but we will take care of that.

Senator Finestone: Mr. Johnston, I am pleased that you find there has been an improvement in the language. I must tell you that I have heard a fair number of complaints about Bill C-16. I am glad that the changes have been made. Do you sense there is satisfaction among the 1100 corporations that make up your roster?

Mr. Johnston: It is fair to say, senator, that a large majority of our member organizations would not see themselves as affected by the proposed legislation, except to the extent that there was any inference that all fundraising for terrorism was taking place through registered charities and the negative impact of that. That is why I think they would be much more supportive of this bill than of the previous one.

I should say that some of our members may have concerns specific to their organizations. We have not yet heard them. That does not mean that there are none.

Senator Finestone: If there is some concern around the language or something that needs to be tightened up, I hope that you will advise us within the next few days, as Senator Beaudoin suggested.

As for due process, I gather you are concerned about the disclosure of information about a certificate that might be issued. That is the process that the government will use. Where they have a concern, they will recover the funds that are being raised in whatever type of organization, not necessarily charitable, but some of that information would be kept confidential ad infinitum, I presume. Maybe it is just as well.

I am not clear on what your other point was. You talked about provisions that limit access to information on the issuance of a certificate. The issuance of a certificate comes about after an assessment. Many of us around the table have been concerned in the last few days that there might be misinterpretation and a certificate issued in error. That can certainly happen when you have 1100 member organizations. If you have a couple of errors, it is a couple too many, because it permanently injures that organization's ability to fundraise for a good cause.

I just reread it and it appears that the revocation is clear. Perhaps I missed something, which is possible, because I, too, am not a lawyer.

I repeat the invitation to bring forward any clarifying wording in either language. I suggest you check the French as well as the English. Senator Bacon and I have several language changes that we would like to propose here. It is not unusual to find that.

Is there any way to raise funds other than through a registered charity?

Mr. Johnston: Anyone can raise funds. There is nothing to preclude you from going out and raising funds. We do it all the time. Someone may come knocking at your office door to raise funds for what you are told is their child's activities at school. You fork out $10. That is done completely informally. It is done outside the purview of any formal, registered system. People will come knocking at your door, asking you for a donation for a particular organization.

By and large, those organizations will not be registered charities. They do not need to be registered charities. There is nothing to preclude or prevent the raising of funds by organizations that are not registered charities. This happens all the time. In fact, much of what Canadians donate is not to registered charities. It goes to other non-profit organizations. They are not caught in the screen of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. That is the point we were trying to make.

Fundraising takes place in a variety of different forms. If you limit your focus to those organizations known to the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, you will be missing an important part of the fundraising activity that takes place.

As we read the provisions of the proposed legislation, we think it would cast a much broader net. It essentially criminalizes any kind of fundraising activity, whether done informally or formally, by an individual or a group, by a registered charity or some other body, if it is for terrorist purposes. That is the way it should be, from our point of view.

Senator Finestone: You are satisfied from that perspective?

Mr. Johnston: Absolutely.

Senator Finestone: Was the process of applying for a registered charitable status of concern to any of your constituents?

Mr. Johnston: As we understand it, the due process provisions apply both to individuals who are in the process of applying to become a registered charity, and those organizations that already have charitable status. Our concerns would apply equally, whether or not the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency had already conferred the charitable status.

Senator Finestone: Mr. Johnston, there has been significant concern about National Revenue doing a revision of the charities for which they are responsible. John Bryden has played a role in that set-up. Do you hear anything about that?

Mr. Johnston: Canada Customs and Revenue Agency has much the same approach to registered charities as it does to individual income tax filers. The agency does not review and audit every individual income tax return as a matter of course. If it receives information from a charity that seems to be out of order, or complaints, then it will undertake an audit and do random spot audits. This happens as a matter of course, and has for quite some time. There have not been any concerns about the process that Canada Customs and Revenue Agency uses. If anything, it may actually be going somewhat overboard in undertaking more audits than are necessary.

One of the problems is that the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency tends to operate with a high measure of secrecy and confidentiality because of the requirements of the tax system. Very often, decisions are made and others will not learn from them.

By and large, I can say that the auditing process of Canada Customs and Revenue Agency has not been a major concern for our members, or many other charities as far as we can tell.

Senator Tkachuk: This issue concerns me. At the same time, I understand the government's reasons for doing it. We are trying to find a way, as we have with other issues here, not to hurt people who have done nothing wrong.

I disagree with you somewhat; I think terrorists would act in very normal ways. That is the way they hide in society. They appear quite normal. They are involved in the community. They try to act above suspicion. They try to blend in as much as possible. One way to do that is through involvement in charities.

The second thing is that we have been rather benign, almost to the point of neglect. It was almost radical chic before September 11. The IRA used to travel in the United States and make no bones about it. A bomb would go off in London. People would go to their dinners. The IRA was raising money. For all I knew, they were using registered charitable vehicles to do it. This upset me. I am in the majority now, and I feel better about that. I always felt it was obscene that people would actually give money to organizations like that.

I am sure the government is thinking of those two issues. If you can convince me otherwise, please go ahead, because we are trying to get to the bottom of it here and to do the best we can.

There are two lists here. One is the registered charity list, which is separate from the terrorist list that we were talking about earlier. Then once you hit the registered charities list, you go over to the terrorist list as well, which means you are done like dinner, whether or not you did anything wrong.

I am not sure how we can solve the problem, except to see if we can find a way to prevent a misuse of this power.

Second, would your lawyers know about launching a civil action? Maybe lawyers around the table would know. If I were put on a terrorist list, I would sue the government. I would sue them, and I think I would win and get lots of money. There is that avenue for you to use. That is a big threat. The government will be very careful about what they do here.

Senator Beaudoin: That is an action for damages.

Senator Tkachuk: I think it would be a strong action for damages. I am throwing that out for discussion here.

I do not have any questions, but I wonder if you could comment on these points of view and perhaps help us through this.

Mr. Johnston: Senator, I do not wish to imply or suggest in any way, shape or form that there are absolutely no organizations in Canada now with registered charitable status engaging in activities that are supporting terrorism. I would not make that categorical statement, because I suspect that there may well be some organizations that have slipped through the screen, are registered with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, and able to issue tax receipts. To the extent that any of those organizations are raising funds in support of terrorist activities, then their charitable status should be revoked, full stop. We take no issue with that at all.

The point that we were trying to make earlier, however, is that we do need to keep in mind that fundraising takes place in a variety of different fora. You do not need registered charitable status to raise funds. If we are serious about trying to eliminate fundraising for terrorist activities, let us cast the net as broadly as possible. That would include provisions that would affect registered charities or applicants for registered charity status much broadly, which is why we are supportive of this proposed legislation.

Your earlier point is part of the broader concern that we all share, that while we are fully supportive of the objectives and the intent of the proposed legislation, we also need to be careful that we do not inadvertently affect an organization that is not acting contrary to it. From our point of view, the best way to do that is to ensure due process.

We understand that the conferring of charitable status implies and provides some credibility to an organization. There is an assumption that if you have passed the test, if you have applied to the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and been granted charitable status, you have received somewhat of a good housekeeping seal of approval. It is not quite that clear cut, but there is clearly that perception.

The revocation or denial of charitable status is an important event in the life of an organization because of its implications. As we are casting the net as broadly as possible to try to prevent anyone from raising funds for terrorist activities, we need to ensure that we do not unfairly catch up even a few organizations in that because some particular activities were misunderstood.

Senator Tkachuk: That includes activities that you did not know about. People donating money to international causes may write a cheque to an organization like the Afghanistan Relief Fund, when it may really be a front.

Mr. Johnston: There is a potential for that to happen. Organizations in the charitable sector have shared those kinds of concerns for some time, and they are not limited to international fundraising. Organizations are set up with names similar to well-known, reputable organizations. Instead of the Canadian Cancer Society, an organization will be set up called "the Canadian cancer network" that may not be a registered charity; it may be doing fundraising. There is confusion in the minds of the public. That is an ongoing concern that existed before this specific bill.

Senator Tkachuk: People watching on TV should be aware that registered charities must do an audit every year, which is a rather onerous task. As any public corporation must do, they must file an audit with the provincial and the federal governments pursuant to legislation. They must list to whom they give money. Those things are detailed and fairly onerous. It is difficult to get around that stuff. As you say, it probably does happen, and for all I know, the income tax people may not have been paying much attention to it. I am sure they will be now.

Mr. Johnston: If we think about the role that charities in the United States played in New York immediately after September 11, it was organizations like the Red Cross, the United Way and the Community Trust that quickly moved into action.

By the same token, it is our sense that as the war in Afghanistan evolves and the refugee crisis mounts, it will be the humanitarian organizations, whether that is CARE Canada, World Vision or Oxfam, that will be in real need of support and donations from Canadians in trying to relieve the plight of the innocent citizens who have been used as the pawns of terrorism. We do not want to alarm Canadians in any way that would cause them to stop supporting those kinds of organizations. We will need the help of those types of international humanitarian organizations much more in the years to come.

Senator Jaffer: Mr. Johnston, ever since this bill, and the earlier bill on charities, came out, my preoccupation has been with one of the things you spoke about. If I am correct, you spoke about Part 8 in the bill. I would like to share some thoughts with you on that.

I have just finished a term as president of the YWCA of Canada, which is part of your organization. That organization is significantly involved abroad in working with women. If a country did not like us and reported us, we could lose our status. The YWCA is constantly worrying about losing its charitable status in various countries. This is an important issue for them.

One of the things the minister spoke about, and I was wondering if you could perhaps discuss it with your member groups, is a specialized court. If this proposed legislation is to work, I believe we must educate judges about different countries before they make these decisions. When the information comes from government X, what does that mean? Is that analysed, as they have started to do for refugee cases?

Have you given any thought to that and could you comment on it?

Mr. Johnston: Senator Jaffer, we have not given any thought to that idea. However, I will takes that back and share it with my colleagues. We are trying to be as constructive as we can to help honourable senators and your colleagues in the House of Commons to move quickly in developing a piece of legislation that we must live with for some time. I know we are all intending to get it right. I will take that issue back.

Charities have been concerned that the only recourse for any appeal of the revocation or denial of charitable status has been to the federal court. It has not always been clear that organizations had the capacity to launch such action, or that the federal court had any expertise in judging some of these issues that affect charities.

The challenges will increase over time as organizations operate more and more across boundaries. It is not just the private sector that is globalizing. You will find that many charities are now operating in a global manner and across boundaries in other parts of the world.

The suggestion is an interesting one. I will share it with my colleagues and we will offer whatever perspective we can.

Senator Jaffer: My follow-up question to that is: If a charity ends up on the list that the government is talking about, that would, as you have mentioned, send a complete chill over the organization. It could never recover from even the scent of that.

Mr. Johnston: The combination of actually being denied charitable status and then being identified on some kind of a list would really be the death knell for any organization.

Senator Joyal: Mr. Johnston, I refer you to Part 6, clause 2 of the bill. My concern, which I have expressed in previous sessions of this committee, does not deal with terrorism activity but terrorism in general. Parts of the bill are very specific. They mention specifically terrorist activities such as violence against persons, against institutions, and so on. This one is much broader. It covers everything.

As you said quite eloquently in your presentation, there are many countries in the world where, for instance, to support the release of a political prisoner would be seen as terrorism. The advocacy of some human rights - the equality of various groups - would be seen as terrorism or as supporting rebellion or, in one way or another, as activities that threaten the stability of the state. We only need to read the report of Amnesty International to know in which countries it would be easy to label as "terrorism activities" things that are, in fact, seen as legitimate activities in a democratic society.

We are concerned with the definition of "terrorism," or that mention of terrorism, which is a very broad term. I would feel more comfortable referring to these terrorist activities for what they are. In the bill they are listed. As you know, the principle in criminal law is to specifically define the offence so that citizens, who are not supposed to ignore the law, know what they are doing. It is a fundamental principle of the Criminal Code.

How can we create an independent, reliable authority that would scrutinize the requests of foreign governments for the exchange of information? This is an important element. We could look into the list of activities of any other groups, and we would find many countries that would use that as the excuse to prevent Canadian NGOs or charities from being active in those countries, where their action is most needed.

Those are my two concerns in respect of this clause. Many of your members will certainly share that preoccupation.

Mr. Johnston: Senator Joyal, I would agree that in the reference to terrorism in Part 6, clause 2, it should be made clear that the definition of "terrorism" was outlined in earlier provisions of the bill, possibly in Part 1 or Part 2.

As for your second question about a mechanism to fairly evaluate or assess the information being provided by foreign governments about Canadian organizations that might be subject to that provision, I do not know the answer. Certainly I share your concerns, which is why we identified those provisions. I quote from Part 6:

8.(1)(b) The judge shall examine the information and provide counsel representing the Minister or the Minister of National Revenue with a reasonable opportunity to be heard as to whether the information is relevant but should not be disclosed to the applicant or registered charity or any counsel representing it because the disclosure would injure national security or endanger the safety of any person.

To be honest with you, the question that arose in my mind is: What would an "injury to national security" be? How would you define that? It would seem to me that that would be one area in particular that could benefit from more precision. It would be clear for the judge in this instance: What would the criteria be for determining whether the release of information would injure national security? We share your concerns about the potential for foreign governments to provide information.

If we were to go back 12 to 14 years, one wonders what the government in South Africa at the time would have said about the ANC, and how they would have characterized its activities and operations and any organizations in Canada that were raising funds in its support. This is a concern. Again, I do not have any specific, concrete suggestions, other than perhaps a need to better define what would constitute an injury to national security.

Senator Joyal: Our imaginations can conjure up all kinds of scenarios. I understand there are countries that do not really support the education of women. A group in Canada that raised funds for a church would be considered subversive - as threatening the power of the day. If there is a value in Canadian society that we cherish, it is equal access to education for everyone. It would be a real contradiction between something that is a fundamental value in Canada, but happens to be unsupported by the government of the day in a foreign country.

We can think of equality for women, and many other values about which we feel strongly. It is important to find a way to balance the information that could be passed on by a foreign government with the legitimate preoccupation of the Canadian government that money not be used to feed terrorist activities linked directly to what is in the bill. The two are almost intertwined in terms of their interpretation.

Senator Wilson: Suppose a group finds itself on the list for funding terrorist organizations; it is identified publicly and it loses its charitable status, all of which leads to a loss of public confidence. What is the point of due process? Is not the solution, as you suggested to Senator Joyal, to look at more precision in the definition of terrorist acts?

I referred to that this afternoon in regard to the African National Congress. If the bill does not do this with more precision, is due process then not simply shutting the barn door after the horse is out, and the entire burden of appealing that falls on someone? The bill should protect people, rather than telling them that if they are not satisfied, they should go to due process. Would you comment on that?

Mr. Johnston: Senator, my sense is it is a matter of trying to do both, and to ensure that the definitions of terrorist activities are as clear and precise as possible. However, assuming that no degree of clarity will resolve all possible problems, then you need to ensure that at the end of the day, there are fair, open and transparent processes for individuals or organizations that believe that they have been unfairly identified, or had charitable status revoked, to defend themselves against those allegations, even though tremendous damage would already have been done. Otherwise, it seems to me it would almost be adding insult to injury.

Senator Wilson: I would agree. However, the weight of proof should rest on the bill itself, so that citizens are not put in a position of having to defend themselves. The current definitions are extremely broad, in my view.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Johnston, for coming. Anything that you can send to us that would be helpful, please do.

Senators, that wraps up the hearings for today. I thank you once again for your attendance and cooperation. I will declare this meeting officially adjourned.

The committee adjourned.