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:
Steven Blaney ConservativeMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the New Democrats to read and understand Bill C-51. They would realize that there are many checks and balances. Every time the rights of Canadians could be infringed, the RCMP or CSIS will have to seek a warrant and the consent of the Attorney General. There is an oversight body, for which we are doubling the funding.
We are waiting for the NDP to get on board and take the measures necessary to protect Canadians.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Mr. Speaker, ever since the Conservatives introduced their anti-terrorism bill, the rumblings of discontent across Canada have been growing steadily. In Calgary, Edmonton, Halifax, Vancouver, Ottawa and Montreal, thousands of Canadians have demonstrated against Bill C-51.
Aboriginal communities, unions, business people and experts in every field are telling the Conservatives that this bill is useless and dangerous. Even four former prime ministers are concerned about the absence of an oversight mechanism.
How can the Conservatives and the Liberals still vote for such a controversial bill?
Steven Blaney ConservativeMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of oversight and review mechanisms in Bill C-51.
Canada can be proud that our model is the envy of the world. If the New Democrats truly want to act in the best interests of Canadians and protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians, they should stand up because we are doubling the budget of the Security Intelligence Review Committee. Furthermore, I am proud that a Quebecker will chair the review committee. He has an excellent reputation. He will continue to ensure that our intelligence services protect the Canadian public.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Mr. Speaker, the appointment of two new people to the Security Intelligence Review Committee—no matter how competent they may be—does not fix anything. One of the many problems with Bill C-51 is that there is no proper, independent oversight mechanism for the additional powers granted to CSIS.
Currently, the committee simply reviews activities after the fact, and there is no ongoing oversight to ensure that our rights are protected.
Does the minister understand the difference between review and oversight?
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that committee deliberations to try to fix bills are challenging at best and impossible at worst. When a flawed bill goes before a committee in the current Parliament, it is almost impossible for opposition parties to have any say in trying to correct it. The exception is when there is something so egregious it is absolutely clear on its face that it will be a problem, and even then sometimes the Conservatives do not listen. That has been my experience until now.
We have gone through the same thing with Bill C-51, which is another extremely flawed piece of legislation and ought to be withdrawn entirely. The Conservatives have not accepted a single one of any of the amendments put forward at committee.
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first petition is from residents of the London and Woodstock areas.
While the petitioners agree that terrorism is a real threat and we must confront it, they are very concerned about Bill C-51. They believe that instead of making Canadians safer, the Conservatives are playing politics with this bill, which is dangerous, vague and, mostly like, ineffective. It could threaten our rights and freedoms, and would give CSIS sweeping new surveillance powers without proper oversight.
The petitioners are very concerned about the possibility of abuse. They call upon the House of Commons to listen to the NDP's principled stand, stop the attack on our civil liberties and vote down Bill C-51.
Gary Schellenberger Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to present today three petitions.
The first petition is from my constituents who are concerned with Bill C-51.
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I admire the quality of optimism, and I know that hope springs eternal in my colleague's breast.
After this statement, we will complete the motion, pursuant to Standing Order 78, in relation to Bill C-51. After that, we will consider Bill C-46, the pipeline safety act at report stage, and then proceed to debate it at third reading. This bill would ensure that Canada's pipeline safety regime remains world class. That debate will continue next week, on Wednesday.
Tomorrow we will wrap up the second reading debate on Bill C-50, the citizen voting act. The House will have an opportunity later today, I hope, to deliberate on how that will proceed.
Monday, we will conclude the report stage debate of Bill C-51, the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015. Our Conservative government takes all threats to the security of Canada and Canadians very seriously.
That is why we are moving forward with Bill C-51 and the crucial provisions contained in it to protect our national security. Third reading of this important bill will take place Tuesday.
Thursday, before question period, we will consider Bill S-3, the port state measures agreement implementation act at report stage, and hopefully, third reading. This bill passed at second reading with widespread support, and I am optimistic that third reading will be no different.
I understand that the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities is meeting this afternoon to give clause-by-clause consideration to Bill C-52, the Safe and Accountable Rail Act. This bill would further strengthen Canada's rail safety regime and ensure that adequate compensation is available. If the committee finishes that work today, we will consider the bill at report stage and third reading after question period next Thursday.
At second reading, New Democrats spoke about the importance of passing this bill urgently and therefore I hope that they will see to letting this legislation pass next week, so that the Senate will have plenty of time to complete its consideration of the bill before the summer adjournment.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have bad news and good news.
The bad new is that today, the government sadly used a closure and time allocation motion for the 94th time to shut down debate on Bill C-51, which is a threat to our rights and freedoms.
The government even seems to want to move a 95th closure motion after question period. Unbelievable. This government will not allow debate.
The good news is that tomorrow is May 1. That means that there are only 170 days left in the life of the Conservative government. There are only 30 sitting days. What that means is that the damage the Conservative government is doing is going to start being repaired as of Oct 19, when an NDP government comes in and starts repairing all that the government has broken over the course of the last few years. That is good news for Canadians.
That being said, I would like to ask my hon. colleague, the government House leader, what will be on the government's agenda in the coming week.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, let me parenthetically agree entirely with the member for Northwest Territories. Canada's performance as chair of the Arctic Council was a disgrace.
My question is related to Bill C-51 and the 94th application of time allocation. Earlier today, the government House leader made the absurd claim that I had not read Bill C-51, which I assure the House I have studied assiduously, and I doubt that the hon. member has.
I would like to know if the government House leader knows the difference between oversight, review, and issuing a warrant. They are three entirely different concepts. Bill C-51 does not contain any judicial oversight.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Mr. Speaker, many aboriginal communities, including Akwesasne in my riding, are worried about the impact Bill C-51 will have, and with good reason.
As we already know, although aboriginal people make up only 4.3% of Canada's population, they make up 23% of federal inmates. Bill C-51, which is overly broad, will only increase this disproportionate representation in our prisons. Furthermore, public safety infrastructure on reserves is underfunded.
Why is the minister so determined to ram Bill C-51 through when it threatens the rights of aboriginal peoples?
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, stop the press.
The Liberal Party finally has a policy of sorts. It is their outrage about the Conservatives using taxpayers' dollars on partisan advertising. Now, I agree that is unacceptable.
I remember a time when the last Liberal government shamelessly raided the treasury for its own partisan ads. The Liberal brand has not changed much.
Let us just look at the Auditor General of Ontario, who is warning that the Liberal gang there is stripping the rules so it can flood the airways with partisan advertising.
What do these Liberals here have to say about it? They say not a peep, not from the likes of Gerald Butts who wrote the Ontario Liberal playbook. The Liberal position is really clear: they are against partisan advertising, unless they get to do it; they support labour rights, unless they are trashing collective bargaining rights on Parliament Hill; they claim to be defenders of the Charter, except when they are supporting Bill C-51. It is Tweedledee and Tweedledum, two tired old parties cut from the same cloth.
Canadians know the difference, and they are going to show both parties the door come this election.
Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted the hon. member had an opportunity to get up to speak to Bill C-51 today. She just got a chance to participate in the debate on Bill C-51. The reason I like that is that twice today she voted to keep us from debating. Twice today she voted to shut down this House. Twice today already she has voted to go home, turn on the TV, kick up her feet and relax, to shut down the House of Commons. Instead, because the government wanted to proceed, we are here debating Bill C-51 right now. I am glad she has that opportunity to do that.
Of course, I will point the member once again to the statistics. Our government's approach has been one of using time allocation as a scheduling device. The result, compared with other parliaments, compared with the United Kingdom, for example, is held out time and time again as the best example of robust debate. We debate at every stage on bills, on average, much longer than they do in the United Kingdom Parliament. That is because our approach is one that facilitates debate, but also one that prevents the gridlock we see south of the border where decisions never get made because of overly partisan filibusters.
We want to give members of Parliament a chance to actually vote on the questions that are important to Canadians, to pass judgment on them. That is particularly important on a question as central as combatting terrorism and keeping Canadians safe, something which Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work on and make decisions on.
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House what we are debating right now. It is actually a move by the Conservative government to shut down debate on Bill C-51.
I remember being in this House and being told that time allocation had to be moved at second reading so that we could go to committee where in-depth discussions would be had. Lo and behold when we got to the committee stage, there were very restrictive time allocations. We as the opposition had to fight for more time, and only a little bit more was granted.
Now here we are, when we, as parliamentarians, have an opportunity to stand up and present our constituents' perspectives, to take part in that debate, and once again I am being denied that opportunity because the government is using the bullying tactics of the power of the majority to tyrannize and silence the voices of those who oppose this legislation.
What does the government have to hide?
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, this debate is about the decision of the government to reduce the debate on this important bill. I listened to the House leader talk about the great consultation that the government conducted with Canadians.
I took the time to meet with members of one of the mosques in my riding last week and asked them if they had been approached by or met with any of the Conservative members to discuss their concerns with Bill C-51, and they said not once. The members had actually done a survey in their mosque on the deep concerns about the ramifications of this bill. They are also concerned that no one has reached out to them to work with their members to try to prevent anybody from being lured by terrorists.
I take severe objection to the suggestion that there has been adequate consultation with Canadians about this bill and that the bill would not impact the rights and opportunities of Canadians. There are many in my riding who are deeply afraid of the implications of the bill on their rights and privileges in our country.