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.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things the minister forgot to mention she said was that the bill lacked sufficient oversight. He is selectively quoting from his own witness.

Despite the fact that leaders from faith communities have testified at public safety, they all agree that we urgently need a national deradicalization strategy and that Bill C-51 lacks critical oversight mechanisms that would prevent abuse.

How can the minister refuse to act in the face of overwhelming evidence that his bill is fatally flawed, when 45 out of 48 witnesses are telling us that this bill needs to be amended or abandoned?

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

Mr. Speaker, the ministers over there still do not get it. Bill C-51 is chockablock full of measures that threaten Canadians' rights and freedoms, but missing key elements that would actually help keep Canadians safer.

The committee heard today from community leaders, like Zarqa Nawaz, who are working on the ground to prevent radicalization. They desperately need more resources, not divisive rhetoric from the government.

Why is de-radicalization not a priority for the government when we know it works and it can actually prevent future attacks?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to oppose Bill C-51.

The Canadian Bar Association criticized the new, almost unlimited powers to disrupt that would be given to CSIS.

The association said:

It is untenable that the infringement of Charter rights is open to debate, in secret proceedings where only the government is represented.

Why is the Conservative government so determined to pass its flawed bill that waters down our fundamental values?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I hope our NDP friends will listen to the Supreme Court, which finds that our Canadian model, in other words, the review committee, strikes the perfect balance between procedural rights and privacy.

Bill C-51 targets Islamist jihadists to prevent them from achieving their stated objective of carrying out terrorist threats against the west, including Canada.

In this context the measures proposed in Bill C-51 to deal with the nature of threats Canada faces are quite rightly and urgently needed to protect and keep secure the freedom of her citizens.

That was professor Salim Mansur from Western University, in Ontario—

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if we are talking about the same meetings of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, but as for witnesses supporting Bill C-51, give me a break.

Yesterday in committee, we heard others criticizing Bill C-51 for being too broad in scope and lacking oversight provisions for intelligence agencies. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association was clear: a significant part of Bill C-51 is unconstitutional and would infringe upon our basic rights.

Does the minister realize that this ill-conceived bill will violate Canadians' rights and freedoms?

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have heard from many groups and experts across the country, and they are getting more and more worried about the scope of Bill C-51. The Conservatives are wrong to reject serious criticism of their bill.

That is why the NDP will move a motion to broaden the debate. We want to talk about a counter-radicalization strategy and better oversight mechanisms for intelligence agencies.

Will this government support our motion?

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot sacrifice the fundamental freedoms that are central to Canadian society in the name of bolstering public safety. We can and must protect both. The government must listen to the experts who testified before the committee on public safety who warned against Bill C-51 and the overarching attack on fundamental freedoms. The experts agree with the NDP that the bill gives broad and new powers to CSIS, without enhancing oversight, including provisions that could impact legitimate dissent, and does not produce a plan to counter radicalization in Canadian communities.

My main concern is the vague definition of what constitutes a terrorist in the bill. Being born as a Tamil in Sri Lanka, I have experienced what a broad definition of terrorism can mean for an entire people. I have seen and heard from innocent people who have lost everything because of vague definitions of “terrorist”.

As a Canadian parliamentarian, I demand oversight and a clear definition of what is a terrorist and what is legitimate protest. I will stand with the NDP to defend our charter of rights for our fundamental freedoms and for what makes us a strong nation.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-51's provisions are broad and vague, with huge gaps in oversight and accountability. These broad new powers could target, for instance, peaceful anti-pipeline protesters on Burnaby Mountain, citizens in Burnaby and in New Westminster who protest the government agenda, environmentalists and first nations opposing pipeline expansion to the B.C. coast, or aboriginal communities engaged in peaceful civil disobedience to protect their traditional territories.

The government has refused to listen so far to the Canadian Bar Association, the BC Civil Liberties Association, the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, over 100 of Canada's top legal professors, and countless others who have unequivocally exposed Bill C-51's dangerous flaws. New Democrats will relentlessly stand up to this dangerous bill.

Canadians deserve better, and on October 19, they will get better with the new NDP government that respects democratic rights and freedoms in Canada.

Military Contribution Against ISIL

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have any particular views other than to say a well set up question is asked and answered. Both ministers I am sure are capable of dealing with the conflict that exists between their rationales.

However, it goes back to the fact that, again, the government is content with wholesale, feel-good arguments in the sense of, let us lash out and attack brutal terrorists. It feels good to all of us. Who does not want to do that? That is the bottom line kind of justification they are getting to. Then, when they are really going for the moral impulse, they talk about all of the brutality. It is correct to be talking about that, but they are not linking it to any specific legal justification either.

All I am asking for, truly, is straightforward clarity. That will also come with seeing the legal opinions, although the government is rather afraid of the legal profession in this country. It is afraid of law professors who give opinions on Bill C-51, for example. It is disdainful of the Canadian Bar Association. I rather doubt it would want to see its legal opinion subject to the scrutiny of other experts.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I believe it is important to refer to the facts in a debate. When our government wanted to introduce a counterterrorism strategy, the NDP opposed it. That is a fact. The votes are on the record.

Likewise, the opposition did not support us when we wanted to ensure that passports are revoked from people who travel abroad to take part in terrorist activities, let alone when it came to revoking the citizenship of those convicted of terrorist activities. Those are the facts.

As we speak, my Conservative colleagues are listening to evidence, such as that provided by Louise Vincent, the sister of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent. This morning, we heard from the representative of a Muslim association who supported Bill C-51.

That anti-terrorism bill contains a number of provisions to improve our radicalization prevention measures. The NDP does not want us to have effective tools to protect the public.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do support those measures that were put forward by the official opposition as an amendment, and I look also to UN Security Council resolution 2178, which specifically dealt with this issue and pointed out there are many things that countries around the world in that coalition can do to ensure that we provide humanitarian aid.

UN Security Council resolution 2178 also calls on nations to control radicalization within their own borders. In the context of the debate we are having on Bill C-51, I regret that when the government put forward anti-terrorism legislation, it ignored the measures that the U.K. has put in place. The U.K. is putting forward resolutions and programs for prisons and schools to abort efforts at radicalization in those institutions.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I was absolutely flabbergasted to hear out of the mouth of the Liberal defence critic a description of the NDP position as being all over the map.

The Liberal leader, a month ago, initially spoke for intervention but then ultimately voted against the mission in Iraq. On Bill C-51, he is against the bill but he is going to be voting for it. Last week, he publicly spoke in favour of an extension of the mission in Iraq; now the Liberals are voting against it. Yesterday, when asked, if they formed government, would the Liberals who are against the mission bring the troops home, the Liberals said no. The only party in this House that is all over the map, not only on this issue of ISIS and Iraq but on pretty much every issue in this House, is the Liberal Party of Canada.

I would like my hon. colleague to set the record straight and tell us this. Are the Liberals in favour of intervention in Iraq or not? Are they in favour of Bill C-51 or not? If so, why are their actions not consistent with their words?

Public Safety

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of British Columbia, Ontario, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Prince Edward Island. The petitioners are calling on this House to reject all aspects of Bill C-51 that fail to respect Canadian constitutional rights; and to ensure that any new legislation actually focuses on making us safer by fighting terrorism as opposed to what this bill would do, make us less safe while trampling on our rights.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I am dismayed on the point that the word “lawful” was removed in 2001, because it inevitably does include non-violent civil disobedience, wildcat strikes and perhaps events that take place without a permit.

The language to which the parliamentary secretary referred is the very definition that I just read out, which numerous legal experts, including 100 law professors in our country, four former prime ministers and five former Supreme Court justices, have said is vague and over broad. In particular, the Privacy Commissioner for our country has said it would actually blow a hole through privacy rights. That is why it is a very scandalous reality that the Privacy Commissioner is not allowed to testify at the Bill C-51 public safety hearings that are taking place just now.

I will also add for anyone listening that the act would allow the sharing of information “to any person, for any purpose”. This is a dangerous provision for information sharing and it should be removed.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to respond to the member's question, although I think it is fairly straightforward and understandable. It is in the notes here, but I am surprised she would not actually realize it.

The international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada. Canadians are being targeted by jihadist terrorist simply because they hate our society and the values that we hold dear.

We reject the argument that every time we talk about security, our freedoms are threatened. Canadians understand that their freedom and security go hand in hand. Canadians expect us to protect both, and there are safeguards in the legislation to do exactly that.

There is the fundamental fact that our police and national security agencies are working to protect our rights and freedoms, and it is jihadist terrorist who endanger our security and want to take away those very rights and freedoms. Under our government, Canada is not sitting on the sidelines, as the Liberals and NDP would have us do. Instead, we are joining our allies in the international coalition to fight ISIL.

I would like to take this opportunity to dispel some serious misconceptions about the important bill.

First, the definition of activities that undermine the security of Canada applies only to part 1 of Bill C-51, which would enact the security of Canada information sharing act. Under the security of Canada information sharing act, information could only be shared if it related to a specific activity that would undermine the sovereignty, security or territorial integrity of Canada, or the lives or the security of the people of Canada. Information that meets this threshold may only be shared if it is relevant to the recipient organization's jurisdiction or responsibilities for national security.

First and foremost is national security. The security of Canada information sharing act notes for clarity that lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression do not fall within the definition of activities that undermine the security of Canada. Even if some activities of advocacy, some that the member spoke about, protest, dissent or artistic expression are unlawful if they violate the Criminal Code, they would also need to have a national security impact to qualify. Therefore, in addition to being criminal, they would actually need to undermine the sovereignty, security or territorial integrity of Canada. As Rosa Parks did by sitting in her seat, while it may at the time have been deemed unlawful, it certainly would not have met any of those three thresholds.

The act would not authorize any new collection or use of personal information, and recipient institutions would still limited by their lawful mandate in the collection and use of information, including information received under the act. The act does not override specific limitations respecting collection or sharing of information and recipient institution statutes.

Part 4 of Bill C-51 would amend the CSIS Act. This is not linked to the security of Canada information sharing act. In fact, part 4 of the bill would mandate CSIS to disrupt threats to the security of Canada. The concept of a threat to the security of Canada is clearly defined in the act and includes terrorism, espionage, sabotage and foreign-influenced activities. It also includes violent or unlawful covert acts to overthrow our system of government.