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 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:
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not have to choose between their safety and their rights, despite what the other parties would have them believe. Both the Liberals and Conservatives have stood in this House and made all kinds of pronouncements that prey on people's fears.
We in the NDP will not allow fear to triumph over our principles. We will stand up today to defend our rights and our freedoms, and we will oppose Bill C-51.
Will the Liberals and the Conservatives follow our lead?
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is not too late for the Conservatives and the Liberals to change course and listen to the millions of Canadians who oppose Bill C-51.
Experts, jurists, business people and even former prime ministers agree: Bill C-51 is ineffective and dangerous and will undermine our security and our rights.
Will all of the parties join us today in rejecting Bill C-51 and protecting Canadians' rights and freedoms once and for all?
Deepak Obhrai ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights
Mr. Chair, the hon. member eloquently stated the sad situation taking place in Iran. Including the opposition critics, we all agree that the situation in Iran is absolutely disastrous and we do not want to minimize the human rights abuses taking place. Every one of them stated this and that is why it is Iran Accountability Week.
However, I was totally stunned to hear the member for Scarborough—Rouge River talk about the erosion of freedom of speech in our country. She talked about Bill C-51. She said that we were on a similar level to Iran. That is an affront to every Canadian. To say that this is comparable to Canada is nothing more than shameful. I would like a comment again from my colleague on that issue.
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Mr. Chair, I hear Conservative members laughing and making comments, but from looking at the bills that they have put forward, for example, Bill C-51, which openly and overtly attacks my fundamental rights of expression as a Canadian citizen, we can talk about everybody.
Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Chair, I would like to once again thank my colleague for her question.
In theory, Canada could play a role and work more actively to advance human rights in Iran. Unfortunately, in a way, Canada pulled the rug out from under its own feet by putting an end to its diplomatic relations with Iran, since this prevents us from establishing a dialogue. As I always say, establishing a dialogue does not mean that we agree on everything. It means that we are talking and that we are talking specifically about the issues on which we do not agree.
The British embassy was attacked. The British government closed its embassy but it did not sever diplomatic relations so that it would have another avenue for putting pressure on Iran, in addition to sanctions and other measures.
In the absence of that, civil society does end up picking up the slack. I mentioned Amnesty International in my speech. Yesterday I had the opportunity to contribute to the campaign of a young man in Laurier—Sainte-Marie. He is 11 years old and is collecting donations. He is going to bungee jump to promote international human rights. Canadians as young as 11 are getting involved. We know that Canadians think it is important for human rights to be respected around the world and in Canada.
I cannot help but mention that today we concluded the debate on Bill C-51 and that a number of my constituents think this bill could potentially violate Canadians' human rights.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Mr. Speaker, citizens, aboriginal communities, unions, business people, experts, prime ministers and more all agree that Bill C-51 is dangerous and unnecessary. However, that did not stop the Liberals and Conservatives from standing up yesterday and voting against the NDP's amendments to withdraw the most controversial clauses from the bill.
The final vote on the bill is being held tomorrow. How can the Conservatives and Liberals still vote in favour of such a controversial bill?
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Mr. Speaker, last night the NDP put forward amendments to scrap every provision of Bill C-51, yet Liberals and Conservatives voted to push C-51 ahead without any changes.
Legal experts, eminent Canadians, and former prime ministers all said the bill is dangerous and it should not go forward as is. How can Conservatives, who claim to stand up for individual freedoms, and how can Liberals, who say they defend the charter, continue to stand up and vote in favour of a bill that is so seriously flawed?
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have two different petitions from two different parts of Canada. They are both identical and pertain to Bill C-51.
The first petition is from residents throughout Vancouver Island. Over 140 petitioners from Campbell River, Duncan, Comox and Victoria call on the House assembled to reject Bill C-51 as an assault on Canadian constitutional rights.
The second group of petitioners, just shy of 170, from throughout the GTA, are all calling for the House to reject Bill C-51.
John Duncan ConservativeMinister of State and Chief Government Whip
Mr. Speaker, I move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House at the conclusion of the debate later today on 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, all questions necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the said bill be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Wednesday, May 6, 2015, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.
I believe you will find unanimous consent for that motion.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Speaker, I want to add that I would like to potentially come back on this issue. That was almost a filibuster done with the government House leader's almost half-hour presentation. I am sure it is because he does not want the House to talk about Bill C-51, which started out with a lot of support from Canadians and has ended up with the contrary. Most Canadians oppose Bill C-51, so the government House leader now is basically trying to take away the few hours of debate that remain. It is pretty transparent.
However, what he has done in his reply on the question of privilege is simply underscore the NDP position, which is that this should go to committee. What he has tried to do is investigate, do the committee's work, and come up with his own conclusions. That is not appropriate. That is not his job. It is the job of the House to seize what is a clear breach of privilege and to refer it to the procedure and house affairs committee. It is up to that committee to do that appropriate follow-up. The government House leader has reinforced the argument that this needs to be a motion submitted to the House.
My final point is that we said, when the government ran roughshod over parliamentary privileges and rights with its motion a few weeks ago, that this would lead to the executive making decisions that more properly belong to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the legislative branch. The government House leader has just confirmed that this is exactly what the government is doing. The Conservatives have undertaken their own investigation. The Minister of Public Safety did what is your job, Mr. Speaker, which is to do the follow-up and determine, based on your knowledge and on consulting with the security officers, whether it constitutes a prima facie case of breach of privilege.
Now we have the cabinet, the executive branch, doing that investigation itself, by which authority I have no idea. We will certainly be doing the follow-up on that, because these are the kinds of cases exactly that we were apprehensive about when the government bulldozed the motion through the House of Commons. The government House leader has just very clearly reiterated what the NDP and other opposition members raised as a concern as well.
I reserve the right to come back, but this is quite worrisome that we have the executive branch now doing what is not appropriate for it to do. We may come back later on.
Matthew Kellway NDP Beaches—East York, ON
Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition to present with respect to Bill C-51. The signatories to the petition all agree that terrorism is a real threat that needs to be confronted. However, they wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the bill is dangerous, vague, and ineffective, and that it would threaten our rights and freedoms by giving CSIS sweeping new surveillance powers without proper oversight. They ask the House to stop this attack on our civil liberties by joining with the NDP caucus to vote down Bill C-51.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present three petitions.
First, I have a petition from the Vancouver area and Victoria area calling on the House assembled to reject all aspects of Bill C-51, as a bill that fails to protect Canadian constitutional rights and also fails to protect us from terrorism.
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present petitions from many of my constituents in Parkdale—High Park who are very concerned about the government's Bill C-51. The petition calls for keeping Canadians safe without sacrificing our freedom.
Frankly, I have never seen a reaction like I have had in talking to my constituents about Bill C-51. Of course, people recognize that terrorism is a real threat and that we have to be kept safe from that, but they are fundamentally opposed to sacrificing our basic civil liberties and human rights in order to do that. Petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to stop this attack on our civil liberties and to join with the New Democrat caucus to vote down Bill C-51.
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to table a petition generated in Victoria, British Columbia, calling upon the government to move from what it terms “militarized security” to what is characterized as “common security”. More specifically, it urges the government to do three principal things: first, reallocate military expenses and end the subsidizing of the fossil fuel industries; second, ratify the arms trade treaty and cancel the $18 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia; and, third, end the invasion of Syria, withdraw Bill C-51, both of which the petitioners claim violate true security, being common security.
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure and the honour to present a petition signed during a day of action in my riding. My constituents are asking members of the House of Commons to put an end to the Conservatives' attacks on civil liberties by following the leadership of the NDP caucus team and voting against Bill C-51.