This bill is from the 41st Parliament, 2nd session, which ended in August 2015.
Steven Blaney Conservative
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
Part 1 enacts the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act, which authorizes Government of Canada institutions to disclose information to Government of Canada institutions that have jurisdiction or responsibilities in respect of activities that undermine the security of Canada. It also makes related amendments to other Acts.
Part 2 enacts the Secure Air Travel Act in order to provide a new legislative framework for identifying and responding to persons who may engage in an act that poses a threat to transportation security or who may travel by air for the purpose of committing a terrorism offence. That Act authorizes the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to establish a list of such persons and to direct air carriers to take a specific action to prevent the commission of such acts. In addition, that Act establishes powers and prohibitions governing the collection, use and disclosure of information in support of its administration and enforcement. That Act includes an administrative recourse process for listed persons who have been denied transportation in accordance with a direction from the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and provides appeal procedures for persons affected by any decision or action taken under that Act. That Act also specifies punishment for contraventions of listed provisions and authorizes the Minister of Transport to conduct inspections and issue compliance orders. Finally, this Part makes consequential amendments to the Aeronautics Act and the Canada Evidence Act.
Part 3 amends the Criminal Code to, with respect to recognizances to keep the peace relating to a terrorist activity or a terrorism offence, extend their duration, provide for new thresholds, authorize a judge to impose sureties and require a judge to consider whether it is desirable to include in a recognizance conditions regarding passports and specified geographic areas. With respect to all recognizances to keep the peace, the amendments also allow hearings to be conducted by video conference and orders to be transferred to a judge in a territorial division other than the one in which the order was made and increase the maximum sentences for breach of those recognizances.
It further amends the Criminal Code to provide for an offence of knowingly advocating or promoting the commission of terrorism offences in general. It also provides a judge with the power to order the seizure of terrorist propaganda or, if the propaganda is in electronic form, to order the deletion of the propaganda from a computer system.
Finally, it amends the Criminal Code to provide for the increased protection of witnesses, in particular of persons who play a role in respect of proceedings involving security information or criminal intelligence information, and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Part 4 amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to permit the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to take, within and outside Canada, measures to reduce threats to the security of Canada, including measures that are authorized by the Federal Court. It authorizes the Federal Court to make an assistance order to give effect to a warrant issued under that Act. It also creates new reporting requirements for the Service and requires the Security Intelligence Review Committee to review the Service’s performance in taking measures to reduce threats to the security of Canada.
Part 5 amends Divisions 8 and 9 of Part 1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) define obligations related to the provision of information in proceedings under that Division 9;
(b) authorize the judge, on the request of the Minister, to exempt the Minister from providing the special advocate with certain relevant information that has not been filed with the Federal Court, if the judge is satisfied that the information does not enable the person named in a certificate to be reasonably informed of the case made by the Minister, and authorize the judge to ask the special advocate to make submissions with respect to the exemption; and
(c) allow the Minister to appeal, or to apply for judicial review of, any decision requiring the disclosure of information or other evidence if, in the Minister’s opinion, the disclosure would be injurious to national security or endanger the safety of any person.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-51s:
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I myself was appalled when I found out that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada had not even been invited to appear before the committee. I know that because I was there when the NDP members tried to invite him.
What are we to make of the intentions of a government that prevented the Privacy Commissioner of Canada from testifying? It is clear that this bill is dangerous and will violate Canadians' rights.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party has indicated that one of the biggest omissions from this legislation is parliamentary oversight, something we believe is absolutely critical. However, we recognize that there is some value to the legislation. Even the New Democrats have indicated that if they were elected to government in the fall, they would not repeal the act.
Does the member see any value in the legislation? Is there any valuable aspect of the legislation she thinks would be of benefit to Canadians?
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, there is virtually nothing.
The one thing in here that would be of value would be the ability to stop someone from boarding a plane. On the no-fly list right now, it is restricted to people who pose a danger to the flight, as opposed to someone seeking to leave Canada to join foreign fighters.
Other than that, this entire bill is so bad that neither opposition party in this House, should they ever form government, should imagine that it could be fixed with amendments. I hope that the horror of this bill will not pass in this place. I still think that if the Liberals were to vote with the rest of the opposition parties that there are enough Conservatives of conscience that this would not pass. However, if it does pass, after the next election it must be repealed, and then the small change to the no-fly list could be made.
Motions in AmendmentAnti-Terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a privilege to have the opportunity to speak with respect to Bill C-51, anti-terrorism act, 2015.
As we have seen in Canada, the new national jihadist movement has declared war, and Canadians are being targeted by those terrorists simply because they hate our society and the values it represents. It does not matter what the opposition may say and what members may say, it is a present reality. It is a fact, and we only need to look back over the past number of weeks at the terrorist attacks in Ottawa, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, as well as attacks upon Australia and Paris, to see that the threat of radical Islamic extremism is a very real threat that needs to be dealt with, that needs to confronted.
I do not need to mention that here in this House we were not only witnesses, but were directly involved with events that took place. That certainly shattered the innocence of this House and many Canadians. I think it struck a chord with Canadians that someone has to do something, has to take some immediate steps to address what is happening. We need to be sure that the law enforcement agencies and other agencies have the tools they need to deal with this new situation.
It was interesting. The first speaker misspoke by saying initially that the agencies needed “the tools”; then she said “I meant to say the funds”. They need the funds, and we have provided for those funds. More important, we need to be sure as legislators that we provide the tools to the law enforcement agencies and other agencies that have to deal with the security of Canadians.
These threats are real. They require a strong response and strong action. That is why, under the strong leadership of our Prime Minister, our government took action and brought forward the protection of Canada from terrorists act and the anti-terrorism act, 2015, which take steps to protect Canadians against jihadi terrorists who seek to destroy the very principles that make Canada the best country in the world to live.
When the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands says that the bill does not in any way enhance our security and protection, that simply is not so. I will certainly point out in the course of my discussion of the bill that indeed it does do that very thing.
Canadians understand that their freedom and security go hand in hand. Canadians expect us to protect their privacy, to protect their freedom, but also to protect them. There are protections in this legislation to do exactly that.
The fundamental fact is that our police and national security agencies are working to protect our rights and freedoms. They are not working against us; they are working against the terrorists. We have to remember that these are jihadi terrorists who endanger our security and take away our freedoms in a very fundamental and barbaric way.
Providing national security agencies with new tools will ensure that gaps in sharing information about suspected terrorists does not limit their ability to prevent attacks on or against Canadians. We, as politicians, do not enforce the law, but we do have the duty and responsibility to make sure that law enforcement agencies, security agencies, have the necessary tools to keep Canadians safe. Canadians expect no less. Canadians want to be sure that we are confronting the terrorists, confronting the danger to us in the best we can, and that those in positions of authority who have to do that have the tools and resources.
It is a coming of age for Canada to file a comprehensive anti-terrorism bill in the face of terrorism threats and activity. This is activity that has already taken place. It is my view that there is no more fundamental role for a government than to protect its country and its people.
In today's world of global travel, sophisticated communications, and the use of Internet, it is timely and appropriate for the government to get up to speed and to ensure that we have the ability to counter, disrupt, and, where possible, eliminate the threat of terrorism and the threat that may be imminent to Canadians. This is especially so when activities that undermine the security of Canada are often carried out in a clandestine, deceptive, or hostile manner, and are increasingly global, complex, and sophisticated. They often emerge and evolve rapidly, and we need to be sure that our security forces can also adapt and react rapidly and do what we need to do to counter those threats.
The proposed legislation is therefore timely, and provides the tools and flexibility to keep pace with evolving threats and better protect Canadians.
The legislation would criminalize the advocacy for promotion of terrorism in general, and would give the courts authority to order the removal of terrorist propaganda online. That is a sensible thing. Most Canadians would expect them to have the ability and power to do that.
As a member of Parliament, I find it remarkable that we have to date not had specific legislation to authorize the sharing of information between government institutions having to do with the security of Canada and ensuring that the threshold to do so is not unduly onerous. How is it that we have a government department that has to do with security that does not share that information with another department that has to do with security? For anyone to say that to allow them to do that is somehow not helping to better protect Canadians, I do not understand where they are coming from.
With respect to air travel, it is only reasonable to be able to screen and prevent individuals from boarding an aircraft if they pose an immediate threat. There are provisions to give the minister certain powers to do that. Surely that is a direct protection of Canadians.
The legislation allows the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to not only gather information, but to intervene and disrupt terror plots while they are in the planning stages. If it can gather information and know there is a plot but not disrupt it, are Canadians safer? Of course they are not. If we know there is a plot, we do what we can to disrupt it. We make sure that our security agencies have the ability to do that. That would indeed make Canadians safer. Canadians expect that much. They expect our governments to ensure that our agencies can do that. Of course, it does not give CSIS the power to enforce; that is left to the police.
The legislation would also enhance the ability of law enforcement agencies to detain suspected terrorists before they can harm Canadians. The ability to detain those who might harm me, anyone in the House, or any Canadian, is a fundamental ability. That is an obvious positive thing in the legislation.
The legislation would enhance the ability for law enforcement agencies to detain suspected terrorists before they can harm Canadians. It would ensure that a recognizance can issue, with conditions, in peace bond provisions. Judges can require persons to surrender their passport or not leave the jurisdiction.
The legislation would lower the threshold to obtain a recognizance with conditions in circumstances where a peace officer believes on reasonable grounds that a terrorism activity “may” be carried out, as opposed to “will” be carried out. It is lowering the threshold. He must have reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorism activity “may” be carried out as opposed to “will” be carried out, and actions would be taken.
For the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, I would point out that this specific legislation would indeed protect Canadians. Under one threshold that recognizance may not be issued; under this threshold, the recognizance would be issued and would prevent a dangerous event from happening that would harm an innocent Canadian.
It also replaces the requirement that a recognizance is “necessary to prevent” with the words “is likely to prevent”. Anyone who knows that something is “likely” to prevent ought to take steps to ensure that it is prevented. It is a lower threshold, but it is there for the purpose of protecting Canadians, not for the purpose of protecting terrorists.
It would also allow for an increase in the period of incarceration from three days to a possible seven days, with periodic judicial review. The need for these types of provisions is very obvious. It is a coming of age for Canada and Canadians as a whole.
I am sure most Canadians would say that it is about time we tackled terrorism head-on, not watching on the sidelines, not hoping that someone will look after us, but actually putting legislation in place that will protect us, that will enhance the security and protection of Canadians. I think all Canadians expect us to do that, and I would ask the opposition to get behind the bill.
Motions in AmendmentAnti-Terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders
The Acting Speaker Bruce Stanton
The hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain will have five minutes for a period of questions and comments when the House next returns to debate on the question.
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-51, An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders
The Acting Speaker Bruce Stanton
When the House last took up debate on the question, the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain had five minutes remaining for questions and comments.
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to be able to add two cents on Bill C-51, which the Conservatives appear to be ramming through this Parliament without regard for some of Canada's well-fought-for human rights and rights and privileges. Among them is information sharing among agencies. Multiple government departments will now be allowed to share information without being subject to the Privacy Act. The Privacy Act is one of the acts Canadians depend on to keep their personal and private information from prying eyes.
There is no better example of that than Ms. Ellen Richardson, in my riding, who tried to cross the border into the United States, only to discover that her medical information had been shared with the U.S. government in such a way that the U.S. government refused to allow her access. She is a disabled individual. She was going on a March of Dimes cruise, and that cruise was lost to her, and all the money she had spent on it was lost to her because of the information that had been shared by the government with the Government of the United States.
This bill makes that so much worse. I wonder if the member would comment.
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on the specific case. I am not familiar with the facts of the situation or the underpinnings of it.
However, to not have, as the member says, those departments that have to do with the security of Canadians able to share information with other departments that have to do with the security of Canadians is not warranted in light of what we are facing in terms of imminent threats by terrorists, or anyone who would be a threat to Canadians. We would expect our agencies to share that information among themselves when it has to do with security.
There are checks and balances. Of course, if the information obtained by those agencies were used inappropriately, there would be steps that could be taken to remedy that.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, the member implied in his remarks that terrorism has to be taken head-on. It looks to me as if the implication was that those who may not support this bill are not willing to take terrorism head-on. There is a problem with that.
There is nobody in this House, I would submit, who does not want to take terrorism head-on. The difficulty is that we have a government that believes that the only opinion that matters is its own. Even though everyone else in this place represents some 61% of the population, from the Conservatives' point of view, their opinion does not matter. Does the member not see that as a problem?
The way this bill has developed, it is all of one or none of the other. Does the member not think that this place should be able to find compromises so that we deal with both the security side and the protection of civil liberties side? This bill is out of balance.
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the member that this bill is out of balance.
Steven Bucci, the Heritage Foundation representative, said:
My review of Bill C-51 leads me to conclude that this is a...balance between greater physical protection without loss of civil liberties. In the various sections, there's a judicious expansion of info-sharing and law enforcement authorities but in each there are also provisions for recourse and appeals. There is transparency and openness.... In short, this bill seems to balance security and liberty.
Indeed, we have to balance the various interests and come up with the best situation we can in the legislation. This legislation does that. We must combat terrorism head-on. We cannot stand on the sidelines. Even when we join our allies in the fight against ISIL, we expect to engage the terrorists where they are to disrupt them and to ensure that they cannot do us or Canadians any harm. We cannot be found, as some have been found in this House, standing on the sidelines watching while this situation unfolds before us.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, I cannot help in this debate but start by asking what could have been. What could have been done properly with respect to this institution and the people who operate in it, regardless of political stripe, and with respect to finding the balance between national security and civil liberties?
Based on the knowledge we now have of other countries in terms of their national security legislation, and the review agencies that provide oversight on their security agencies, this Parliament could have produced a model for the world in terms of anti-terrorism legislation. However, the bottom line is that we have done anything but that.
We have a piece of legislation that deals somewhat with security concerns, and we support that part of the legislation. However, we are the odd person out in terms of providing protection under the law, through a national oversight sunset clause and other means, to ensure that the citizens of Canada have their civil liberties and freedom of expression protected.
We also want assurance that the national security agencies in total, not just CSIS, but any agency or department that is involved in national security, are properly monitored by people who should have the responsibility, the parliamentarians, on a day-to-day basis. This would ensure that on the one hand these agencies are abiding by the law and doing everything they can within the law to keep Canadians safe, and on the other hand that they are not going beyond the law to impose or infringe on Canadian's civil liberties, or for that matter a foreigner's civil liberties.
Legislation similar to Bill C-51 is required, as is evidenced in virtually every country that Canada is allied with or has shared values with. There is no question that countering the growing threat of foreign and domestic terrorism is a reality which must be confronted by the modern state. However, in combatting that threat, it is important for any government to ensure that the steps taken to combat it do not impose a different threat to its own citizens.
The Liberal Party supports the needed security provisions of Bill C-51 and has made that position clear from the outset. We are not shy about taking a leadership position in that regard. It is easy to oppose, but if we oppose the bill, then we are not dealing with those immediate needs. The policing agencies, CSIS, and even witnesses who have opposed the bill, have come before the committee and said there is a need for security provisions at this time. However, I submit that there is a real problem on the other side.
Sadly, there is a real dilemma here with the bill before us, as with many others. We get caught in what I could call a partisan vortex. We are accused by some, NDP members in particular, of supporting the government. We are not supporting the government. We are supporting certain aspects of Bill C-51. The government, on the other hand, is accusing the NDP and others of supporting terrorism. We all have national security concerns in this place. The problem is that the current Government of Canada does not allow this Parliament to work the way that it should.
We have also maintained that there are provisions in Bill C-51 that are excessive, and will in our opinion represent an intrusion by the state security agencies into the lives of Canadians. They are far too severe.
These provisions, as I have said, could have been narrowed; they could have been amended. There were decent amendments put forward by all parties, and most of them were rejected. Three of our amendments, and the NDP also had some, were indirectly accepted through the four amendments that came forward from the government.
Early in the debate on Bill C-51, my colleague, the member for Mount Royal, and I joined four former prime ministers, including three Liberal prime ministers and others, in issuing an open letter underscoring two fundamental responsibilities of government: ensuring the safety of Canadians, including protecting Canadians from terrorist attacks; and ensuring that initiatives in this regard are consistent with the rule of law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are particularly subject to comprehensive oversight, review, and accountability measures.
In the course of the committee hearings, we proposed many amendments, as did others. As I have said, three amendments were indirectly accepted within government amendments. One of the key ones was certainly taking the word “lawful” out before “protest”, et cetera, about which civil activists groups were rightly concerned.
Three critical amendments from our slate of amendments, though, were rejected: the need for oversight of our intelligence and security agencies; building in provisions in the bill for the review and sunsetting of certain provisions of Bill C-51; and the need to ensure that any new authorities given to CSIS and others under Bill C-51 are charter compliant. There is a very strong risk, and I believe a reality, that some of those provisions in the bill are not charter compliant.
The issue of oversight of our security and intelligence agencies has long had the support of the Liberal Party. In the wake of 9/11 and the first anti-terrorist legislation, it was a Liberal government, with the support of members of the government at the time and the NDP, that brought forward Bill C-81. It created a committee of parliamentarians that would provide that oversight. As I said, that came out of a committee report that the previous minister, Anne McLellan, appointed. I happened to be a member of that committee as well as one of the co-chairs, as were the current Minister of Justice and the current Minister of State for Finance.
It was a unanimous report of the committee. That legislation was proposed, but it died on the order paper. In June 2009, in a report on the review of the findings and recommendations arising from the Iacobucci and O'Connor inquiries, the public safety committee recommended that Bill C-51 be adopted. It provided for national oversight.
It is interesting that six members of the Conservative government were on that committee. The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, the member for Oxford, the member for Brant, the member for Northumberland—Quinte West, the member for Wild Rose, and the previous member of the Conservative Party, the member for Edmonton—St. Albert were on that committee. What has happened to them that they are not now in favour of national oversight?
I recognize that my time is short, but at the very least I would encourage the government to bring forward a parallel bill, in terms of oversight, for national security agencies. There are private members' bills on the books that would do the trick and could be brought forward.
We need three things. We are saying that while we support the bill, we will put these three things in the election platform of the Liberal Party because the government has failed to do so.
First, we need a national oversight committee of parliamentarians similar to that of our Five Eyes partners. Second, we need to put in place sunset clauses to ensure that sections of the bill cease to exist in three years. Third is a statutory mandatory review so that the bill itself, the good, the bad, and the ugly, is looked at by future Parliament, in three years' time, to make the bill the best that it can be.
Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders
Scarborough Centre Ontario
Conservative
Roxanne James ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech. He also sits with me on the public safety committee.
Throughout his speech, he continued to refer to issues surrounding his failed private member's bill. He asked many of these questions of the witnesses during committee, even though his failed private member's bill and his ideas for oversight were not part of the actual bill itself. In fact, during clause-by-clause, he had to withdraw some of the amendments he had put forward because what he felt was the truth was actually not correct and officials had to correct him.
We have been very clear on this side of the House. We firmly believe that third party, independent, non-political oversight is the best method to ensure that our security agencies can operate without any political interference from very partisan members who are in the House. Let us be clear about that.
It is strange enough that the member likes to compare this particular issue with countries we are similar to, wanting to know why we are not doing it. I should ask him the same question. When comparing us to other countries, why did the Liberal Party vote against standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies in the global fight against jihadist terrorism and joining the air strikes and coalition against ISIL?
That is the question I would like to ask the member. Why does he not use that same philosophy on issues that actually matter to Canadians?
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, the security of Canadians is very important, but oversight is important too. I will quote what Ron Atkey had to say. He is a former Conservative MP and was the first chair of SIRC. He said:
...I have been both a parliamentarian and a watchdog, a professional watchdog. The answer to whether Parliament or a specialized agency should have the power to review our security agencies is easy for me. Canadians should have both. Under our system of government, Parliament is the ultimate watchdog and is directly accountable to the people. The party having the most number of seats at each general election usually is called on to form the government, but Parliament itself remains the watchdog.
That came from a former Progressive Conservative member.
The other point I would make to what the parliamentary secretary said is that in terms of being non-partisan, are Deborah Grey, as chair of the SIRC committee, and Chuck Strahl, non-partisan? Come on. We all know better than that.
Let us be in line with our Five Eyes partners and do it right.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, let us start with a known element here, which is that the House collectively is concerned with the safety and security of Canadians. When allegations are made otherwise by someone, it is not becoming of them or of others.
Let us also establish the fact that it is well understood that oversight is incredibly important, particularly when handing over increased powers. The powers being imagined to be given to CSIS in this bill are extraordinary. It would be able to tap phones, hack into people's email accounts, and have almost no judicial oversight of any of those measures.
We have asked for and demanded parliamentary oversight. My question specifically for my Liberal friend is that he mentioned that there were some amendments taken. They were small and around the edges of the essential questions. We do not believe that this bill is constitutional, and many experts who study constitutional matters agree with us. There is in fact nobody who says it is, other than the Conservatives across the way.
The member said that there were three elements that the Liberals proposed that were critical to the bill's function. We have a choice in front of us. None of those changes were offered up. The government has refused. It is not moving a private member's bill, as he suggested, to make something better happen; this is the Conservative plan on Bill C-51.
I have seen many bills passed through this place. I have never seen a public reaction against a piece of legislation like I have with this legislation. If those measures were critical, why for heaven's sake are the Liberals continuing to vote for it? It is either critical or it is not. If it is that important to the Liberals, they have a choice, which is to vote against Bill C-51.