Bill C-51 (Historical)

Anti-terrorism Act, 2015

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

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.

Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the parliamentary secretary for public safety. She is doing outstanding work, particularly in areas like this and on other bills, such as Bill C-51.

The child advocacy centres across the country serve an important purpose. They have teams of professionals who support children. They also provide opportunities for victims to bring forward their stories when they are under the most traumatic of circumstances. The Sheldon Kennedy Child Advocacy Centre in Calgary, for example, which is supported by this government, is one of those centres and makes sure that the young victims of these horrendous crimes are well supported.

In addition to that, our government has been very focused on a number of initiatives to make sure that children in particular are safe. I encourage all members in the House to look at getcybersafe.gc.ca and to tell others about it. It is a substantive initiative to make sure that young Canadians are protected in their own communities.

Public Safety

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, that is similar to the rhetoric we heard in committee this past week.

Let me talk about one of the witnesses who did appear before committee. Inspector Irwin has more than 30 years of experience in law enforcement and intelligence gathering. What did this credible witness say about Bill C-51? He said that existing laws “are too restrictive” and that there was an absolute need for the new measures contained within this bill. What else did he say about the need for information sharing? He said that it was absolutely crucial. In general, with respect to the bill, contrary to what the opposition parties like to put out, he said that it provided the necessary safeguards.

In the same meeting, we heard opposition witnesses say that the bill had absolutely nothing to do with—

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have been down this road before.

A badly drafted bill from the Conservatives that threatens the charter is just going to land the government in court. The Canadian Bar Association said it best. Bill C-51 is clearly unconstitutional.

Why has the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada lent his support to such a flawed and dangerous piece of legislation when it is his job to ensure that the Constitution is respected?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we concluded a marathon in committee, after hearing some very important testimony on Bill C-51.

Forty-five of the 48 witnesses we heard asked us either to amend the bill or to go back to the drawing board. Now is the time to act responsibly in the face of terrorism and radicalization.

Will the minister listen to the concerns experts expressed about Bill C-51 and will he make the necessary major changes to his bill?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, after two weeks of testimony, one thing that really stands out is what a bad job the Conservatives did in drafting Bill C-51.

Witness after witness has revealed how flawed the bill is. At committee we learned that the Conservatives had not even consulted Canadian airlines on changes to the no-fly list. Here is what we heard from them at committee: the changes in Bill C-51 are likely unworkable and could end up costing airlines and travellers millions without making us safer.

How could the minister fail to do such basic due diligence in drafting the bill?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, this is not a botched bill. The member's assessment of the bill is incorrect.

There are very important and comprehensive measures contained in Bill C-51 that go directly to the heart and effort of protecting Canadians. Whether it is giving our security forces greater ability to promote and protect Canadians' interests by pre-empting some of those actions or whether it is by changing the legislation with insertions in the Criminal Code to allow us to do more to prevent radicalization and recruitment online, this is a comprehensive, important bill before Parliament.

It is getting rigorous examination before committee. I would urge the hon. member to actually take the time to read it and delve a little deeper herself.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, two weeks of study have revealed problem after problem with Bill C-51. Obviously, this is a botched bill. Any government that was the least bit serious would go back to the drawing board.

Why are the Conservatives insisting on passing a bill that jeopardizes our freedoms and ultimately is just not going to work?

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the more Bill C-51 is examined in committee, the more we see that the Conservatives did not do their homework.

Yesterday evening we learned that all of the changes to the no-fly list were developed without consulting the airlines, the ones who will be responsible for enforcing those changes. That is not due diligence.

Why did the Conservatives cut corners when drafting this bill?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, almost every single one of them said more oversight is needed. The Conservatives are just not listening. That is the kind of answer that means the more Canadians hear about the bill, the less they like it.

Conservatives should really listen to the witnesses, including prominent first nations witnesses. Everyone from National Chief Perry Bellegarde to tribal councillors and activists has been clear that Bill C-51 poses a real threat to the ability of first nations to defend their rights and title.

Why is the minister refusing to acknowledge that Bill C-51 threatens first nations' rights, and why such disrespect to first nations?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at what some of the witnesses have actually said. Ms. Raheel Raza, president of the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow, said that legislation is important to combat radicalization and that we need better tools to track jihadists who travel overseas.

Let us listen to what Mr. Ray Boisvert, the former assistant director to CSIS, had to say. He said that Bill C-51:

will be a very effective tool that way to get that material off the Internet.

These are the voices of the experts who are saying Bill C-51 will be an important way in which this government can continue to protect Canadians.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, members need not take our word for it: 90% of Conservative witnesses said that changes were needed.

Bill C-51 is so flawed that even the former head of CSIS intelligence says that more oversight is needed. Unlike the minister, he understands that when CSIS is being given sweeping new powers, it needs increased oversight and review to go along with them. It is a very simple concept.

Will the minister accept our amendments to improve oversight, as 95% of all witnesses and 90% of Conservative witnesses have recommended?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, even though the Conservatives limited the number of witnesses and cut short the debate in committee, we still heard from a number of experts from across the country who practically all agreed with what we have been saying from the beginning: the Conservatives are making a mistake by refusing to listen to the criticism of Bill C-51.

Why is the Conservative government insisting on passing this bill when even its own witnesses are calling for major changes to the bill?

Islamic State

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, when the leader of the official opposition stood in the House and asked pointed and important questions about Canada's legal justification for its planned intervention in Syria, the Prime Minister had the audacity and immaturity to respond by dismissing this serious question as a joke. Abiding by international law when sending our soldiers into conflict zones is not a laughing matter.

So far, we have heard many competing legal justifications from the government, all dubious at best. It is the same cavalier approach that the Conservatives are taking on Bill C-51, dismissing concerns about personal liberties and suggesting that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is simply a matter of discretion.

Canadians have had enough of this. They want a government that will respect international law and protect their rights and freedoms, and that is precisely what an NDP government will do.

Military Contribution Against ISIL

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, it is not clear what the Liberal position is on this matter.

Resolution 2178, which I cited, talks about the complementary measures of respect for law, for human rights, for freedoms, et cetera, and effective counterterrorism measures, yet we have the Liberal Party standing up in support of Bill C-51 before that bill is even tabled and remaining on their feet in support of that bill while knowing that it robs Canadians of rights and freedoms and fundamental human rights.

The Liberal position on the broader issue of counterterrorism, on the broader issue of the public safety of Canadians, and on this issue of the expanded mission in Syria is perfectly unclear to me and, I think, to the majority of Canadians.

Business of the House

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have good news for Canadians. First, it is important to know that there are just a little more than 200 days left in the life of this government. On October 19, Canadians will have the opportunity to put an end to this government. I know that the vast majority of Canadians are fed up with this government.

I have other big news. Even though this government is intolerant when it comes to debates in the House and even though it cut the list of witnesses at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, it is important to note that Canadians are following the debates of that committee. The majority of Canadians may have approved of Bill C-51 during the initial days of the review in committee, but now the majority of Canadians disagree with this government and this bill. That only goes to show the importance of the House debates, which Canadians are obviously following with great interest.

That being said, I wanted to ask my colleague, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, a question: what is on the government's agenda for the next week?