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:
Romeo Saganash NDP Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
Mr. Speaker, aboriginal communities deserve better than rhetoric from this government. They have legitimate concerns. All too often, I have seen law enforcement agencies deem our protests to be illegal, and that was before we had to worry about being lumped in with terrorists.
Will the minister finally recognize that Bill C-51 is unconstitutional and threatens the rights of aboriginal peoples?
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill, MB
Mr. Speaker, the question is this. When will the Conservatives listen to their own caucus that is speaking out in opposition to Bill C-51?
The need for better scrutiny is evident, especially when we learn that first nations activists like Pam Palmater and Cindy Blackstock are already being surveilled by the government. Palmater, Grand Chief Phillip and others have been outspoken in their concerns that Bill C-51 will only make the surveillance easier and risks lumping in first nations activists as terrorist threats.
Will the minister do the right thing, listen to these concerns and stop this bad bill?
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, we had so many witnesses from so many different backgrounds and so many different political perspectives come before the public safety committee and all of them had the same message: Bill C-51 has serious problems.
Yesterday, former Conservative senator Hugh Segal told us that parliamentary oversight for Canada's security agencies was critical. Now even a Conservative MP, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, is speaking out publicly saying the same thing, that new powers for our security services demand increased parliamentary oversight.
Why will the minister not listen to Canadians, including his fellow Conservatives, and add safeguards to this dangerous bill?
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Mr. Speaker, another issue on which Canadians are divided is Conservative Bill C-51.
The Prime Minister surely did not foresee that the dissent would spread even into his own ranks, with the Conservative member for Wellington—Halton Hills daring to admit that more parliamentary oversight of intelligence and security activities is needed.
Will other Conservative members wake up and insist that the Prime Minister finally listen to the criticism of his flawed anti-terrorism bill?
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am presenting relates to Bill C-51, the so-called anti-terrorism act.
This one has also been signed by residents from throughout my riding and from London, Toronto, and Ottawa, Ontario.
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks made by my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord.
Is it simply an impression, or is there a modus vivendi creeping into the government's bills? In Bill C-51, for example, the government would have Canadians believe that existing police forces and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service are not equipped to fight terrorism.
In Bill S-7, it seems to be saying that potential victims, and we hope that there will never be victims, also have no recourse. The Criminal Code already contains very clear recourse for almost all these situations.
What is going on? Is this a partisan political vision or a real bill to help people who are going to need it?
Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security—Speaker's RulingPoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker Andrew Scheer
I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the House Leader of the Official Opposition regarding events which took place in the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on February 26, 2015.
I would like to thank the House leader of the Official Opposition for raising this matter, as well as the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the member for Winnipeg North for their comments.
The House leader for the Official Opposition described the sequence of events at issue in the following manner. The member for Northumberland—Quinte West having moved the previous question during debate on a subamendment to the motion regarding the schedule of meetings for the study of Bill C-51, anti-terrorism act, 2015, the chair of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security ruled it out of order. His ruling was then appealed and overturned by a vote of the committee, effectively allowing a procedurally inadmissible motion to pass and ending debate on the matter. He considered this manner of proceeding to be unacceptable, one in which parliamentary rules, practices and precedents were ignored.
The government House leader, for his part, summarized the events somewhat differently. He claimed that it was in response to a filibuster that the member for Northumberland—Quinte West asked the chair to put the question to a vote, citing persistence, repetition and irrelevance on the part of certain members of the committee. Furthermore, he noted that the members were within their right to overturn the chair's ruling pursuant to the rules of the House. He argued that the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security must remain the committee's exclusive concern unless and until it reported this matter to the House, given that committees were masters of their own proceedings and that Speakers had resisted adjudicating committee matters in the absence of a report from the committee.
It is not unusual for issues related to committee proceedings to be raised in the House when, for whatever reason, members feel that they have no other recourse. Needless to say, versions of events often differ significantly.
In the present circumstance, the Chair is concerned by the suggestion that the proceedings that took place in committee on February 26 threatened to undermine the work of the committee and that the committee was unable to find its way to a mutually acceptable solution, even with both sides stating that they wished to proceed with committee consideration of Bill C-51.
Committees enjoy considerable flexibility and fluidity in their proceedings. It is one of the great advantages that they have in the organization of their work. In fact, it is one of the hallmarks of the committee system, since it not only facilitates and fosters greater co-operation among committee members, but it also enables committee members to find their own solutions to the issues they face. Yet this latitude was certainly never intended as a means to thwart existing rules and practices wilfully.
On June 3, 2003, the then Deputy Speaker stated, at page 6775 of the Debates:
I have said that committees are granted much liberty by the House but, along with the right to conduct their proceedings in a way that facilitates their deliberations, committees have a concomitant responsibility to see that the necessary rules and procedures are followed and the rights of members and the Canadian public are respected.
Just as importantly, it has always been understood that bringing deliberations in committee to a procedural standstill is also not desirable.
The work of committees is an essential part of the legislative process; its integrity depends on members remembering that the rules governing its proceedings matter. The rules adopted by the House exist for the benefit and protection of all members as they carry out their parliamentary functions, both in the House and in committee.
It is perhaps useful in the circumstances to remind the House of the underlying principle, as stated on page 250 of O'Brien and Bosc, that:
—parliamentary procedure is intended to ensure that there is a balance between the government's need to get its business through the House, and the opposition's responsibility to debate that business without completely immobilizing the proceedings of the House.
Faced with such a situation arising in committee, how is the Speaker to adjudicate? As has been noted, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states at page 1046 that:
The Speaker is reluctant to intervene in a committee’s internal affairs unless the committee has previously reported on the matter to the House.
This is so because of the freedom that committees have to determine their own approaches to carrying out their work. For this reason, committees are commonly referred to as being “masters of their proceedings”. This is why it is said that matters originating in committee which require the attention of the House must be brought forward by way of a report from the committee itself. This is not merely a technicality. Rather, it is an indication of the breadth and importance of the powers delegated to committees by the House.
The approach taken by the Chair in cases brought to its attention has long been founded on respect for the authority of committees to manage their own affairs, even in times of difficulty. This requires the Chair to refrain from intervening until invited to do so formally by way of a report from the committee itself on a given matter. Speakers have consistently and successively upheld this separation of authorities.
On June 10, 2010, Speaker Milliken stated, at page 3678 of Debates:
Indeed, on numerous occasions, Speakers have restated the cardinal rule that committees are masters of their own proceedings and any alleged irregularities occurring in committees can be taken up in the House only following a report from the committee itself. There have been very few exceptions to this rule.
On March 13, 2012, as Speaker, I had cause to state, at page 6199 of Debates:
In the absence of a report from that committee, I do not know what the Speaker can do about what is alleged to have happened. However, if such a report does end up coming to the House then the Speaker will consider it then.
Again, on June 5, 2012, at page 8860 of Debates, I stated:
When events transpire at committee, it is up to the committee to deal with anything that may have breached protocol or the rules at the committee...if there is a report presented to the House, it will be something that the Speaker can then weigh in on.
This is not to suggest that the chair is left without any discretion to intervene in committee matters but, rather, it acknowledges that such intervention is exceedingly rare and justifiable only in highly exceptional procedural as opposed to political circumstances. For example, in a ruling delivered on June 20, 1994, Debates pages 5582 to 5584, Speaker Parent intervened in a committee matter involving two bills that had been reported to the House when the fundamental right of the House to establish the membership of a committee was not respected by a committee that had exceeded its powers.
On July 24, 1969, Speaker Lamoureux stated, at page 4183 of Debates:
What hon. members would like the Chair to do...is to substitute his judgment for the judgment of certain hon. members. Can I do this in accordance with the traditions of Canada...where the Speaker is not the master of the house...? The Speaker is a servant of the house. Hon. members may want me to be the master of the house today but tomorrow, when, perhaps in other circumstances I might claim this privilege, they might have a different opinion.... lt would make me a hero, I suppose, if I were to adopt the attitude that I could judge political situations such as this and substitute my judgment for that of certain hon. members.... But I do not believe that this is the role of a Speaker under our system....
In keeping with the overwhelming body of practice in adjudicating disputes of this kind, the Chair cannot find sufficient grounds in this case to supplant the committee’s authority by reaching into committee proceedings on this matter before the committee has seen fit to report it to the House.
Thus, until such time as the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security decides to report this matter to the House, the management of its proceedings remains within its exclusive purview.
Before concluding, I would however be remiss if I did not point out that the Standing Orders, as they exist today, provide avenues to deal with difficulties in reaching agreements between the parties in circumstances such as those brought before the House in this case.
I thank all honourable members for their attention in this matter.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives came here to change Ottawa, but it seems like Ottawa has actually changed them.
There was a time when the Conservatives would have been the first to speak up against legislation that so profoundly threatens our rights and freedoms, but now they champion it.
Canadians have been clear. Bill C-51 needs a full study and amendments, not a rubber stamp by Conservative MPs. Will the minister do the right thing, listen to the voices of thousands of Canadians and stop this bad bill?
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. Bill C-51 is so problematic that even groups that normally support the Conservatives, like the National Firearms Association, are speaking out against it.
When the government has lost even some of its closest allies because it is threatening the rights and freedoms of Canadians, it is time for it to reconsider what it is fighting for.
What will it take for the minister to stop ramming this dangerous bill through Parliament, and to get him to stop and listen to Canadians?
Steven Blaney ConservativeMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, once again, as I have already said, I had the opportunity to meet with Quebec's public security minister, Lise Thériault.
The Quebec government, like the Government of Canada, recognizes the importance of adopting effective measures to confront the terrorist threat. That is why we introduced Bill C-51, a bill that has targeted, effective measures to track terrorists.
I invite my colleague to follow the committee proceedings. The sister of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent is appearing before the committee this evening, and I invite the member to listen to her evidence.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Bar Association is not the only one worried about the impact that Bill C-51 will have on our rights and freedoms.
In a letter to the Conservative ministers, the Government of Quebec denounced the fact that Bill C-51 gives CSIS “such vast powers, including the possibility to take certain actions that violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”.
What does the Conservative government plan to do to address these entirely legitimate concerns?
Nycole Turmel NDP Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec has joined the growing chorus against Bill C-51, criticizing the federal government's unilateral approach and the impact Bill C-51 will have on Quebeckers' fundamental rights. The federal government has a responsibility to consult the provinces on such fundamental issues.
Will the Conservatives agree to our request to hear from three Quebec ministers in committee, namely the ministers of justice, public security and Canadian intergovernmental affairs?
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have used every divisive fearmongering tactic available to try to convince Canadians their overreaching Bill C-51 is necessary, but Canadians know better. They know this just is not true. Canadians have even taken to the streets across Canada, saying loudly and clearly that Bill C-51 is an attack on our freedoms and it will not keep us any safer.
Why is the minister refusing to listen to the concerns of Canadians?
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Mr. Speaker, in preparing for this brief speech I was not exactly sure how I wanted to begin. However, after reading my background notes I am left to wonder why this piece of legislation has even been introduced. It is becoming evident to me that the current Conservative government really is not interested in making Canada a better place in which to live. In fact, sometimes I think it is the opposite.
We have seen a number of pieces of legislation introduced with sensational titles such as this one, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act, that play to the emotions but often lack substance. We have seen this with various so-called tough-on-crime bills introduced in the past years in spite of the fact that our crime rate is falling. In the U.S., which has an alarmingly high rate of incarceration, there are discussions to reject this punitive and primitive approach that is not working and determine which other measures are needed to ensure that those found guilty can return safely and become productive members of society. In other words, that is the approach we have always had in this country, at least until very recently.
A lot of what is presented by the government I would say is meant to increase fear amongst Canadians with respect to problems that may not even really exist. Let us look at Bill C-51, which gives sweeping powers to the government to infringe upon our rights and freedoms. Thousands of Canadians took to the streets last Saturday to protest against the draconian measures of this bill. The sad truth is that we already have adequate measures to protect us from terrorist threats under existing legislation.
I believe and will venture to say that a lot of these bills are just a simple waste of time. Rather than concentrating on crime and fear, perhaps we could realistically tackle issues that are facing us, such as climate change, poverty, the lack of affordable housing, the erosion of our health care system, and the thousands of working poor we have in this country.
Experts who appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights explained that criminalization will not solve the problem and instead will exacerbate it. In fact, several Criminal Code provisions already provide legal recourse with regard to the offences targeted by the bill. Instead of politicizing the issue of gender-based violence, the government could strengthen the legislative measures already in place. It must also commit to implementing a national action plan to combat violence against women and invest more in the organizations that provide services to women in forced or underage marriages.
Naturally, we agree that no woman should be subject to gender-based violence, including the practices of forced marriage and underage marriage. The bill could have serious unintended consequences, including the criminalization of the victims of polygamy, criminalization and deportation of children, and separation of families.
As an aside, I sometimes get the impression that a lot of the bills that are presented here are not really thought out. A bill is presented and then we get an opinion back from the legal profession saying that it may not stand up to court challenges or that it is not well written and thought out. I think this bill falls into that category.
Instead of a sensationalized bill that does not get at the root of the problem, the minister should commit to widespread and meaningful consultations with community groups and experts so that the real issue of gender-based violence is addressed in an effective manner.
The government should also increase investments in organizations that provide services such as safe and affordable housing, counselling and help for families that are often traumatized by the fact that they must navigate complicated legal and immigration systems.
The thing is that what is happening with this bill, what I have learned in going through some background information, is that the information here often duplicates our existing laws. For example, the bill would change the Civil Marriage Act to make free and enlightened consent legal requirements for marriage, but these requirements are already part of the civil code of Quebec and common law in other provinces. The bill would limit the defence of provocation, ostensibly to exclude honour killings, but courts have already ruled that the concept of honour and the culturally driven sense of what is an appropriate response do not count as provocation under the Criminal Code.
Canadian criminal law already provides recourse relevant in most cases involving forced marriage, prior to and after the marriage, as well as in cases of travelling with a minor with the intent to force her or him to marry.
I am just going to list what it includes because it is important for my colleagues here to understand that we have adequate measures in our current legislation for a lot of this information that we are discussing and we are voting on.
For example, it includes uttering threats, section 264.1 of the Criminal Code. It includes assault, sexual assault, kidnapping, forcible confinement, abduction of a young person, procuring feigned marriage, removal of a child from Canada, extortion, sexual offences against children and youth, failure to provide necessities of life and abandoning children, abduction of a young person and, moreover, spousal abuse, abuse of a child and abuse of a position of trust and so on.
We have to ask ourselves this. If in fact we have provisions in our current legislation to address these issues, why are we taking time to do another bill? I would like to submit that perhaps we are doing this because the Conservatives want to sensationalize certain aspects of our society and play to the base, to the fear factor that I talked about before.
Witnesses at the Senate committee hearings pointed out that immigrant women often have significantly less information about the Canadian immigration and legal systems than their sponsoring partners, which allows their sponsors to threaten and manipulate them. However, this bill would make no provision for providing women with basic information about immigration rules or with adequate integration services.
Families who have suffered from violence and harmful practices need adequate supports and programs, especially since the challenges faced by survivors of forced marriages are unique. However, this bill makes no reference to support services. That is an interesting point. We have seen, for example, the sensationalism about Bill C-51, this anti-terrorism bill, and all the provisions that are going into the bill. However, there is really very little about resources to people in the field, to our police and to others who keep our society safe or, in this case, resources that are provided for the safety of women.
It is no secret that under the current government, women's centres have lost funding, that the organizations that support and work with women who are undergoing violence and spousal abuse do not have the resources that they had a decade ago. At the same time, we see a bill that supposedly would address the situation, but there is nothing on the ground to help those people when they approach a centre, if in fact the centre is still allowed to exist.
According to UNICEF, if Canada wants to ensure the protection of children from human trafficking, it must recognize that Canadian children who become victims of trafficking largely end up that way as a result of a series of failures in the protective system.
Many children live in low-income families without adequate access to community support services that could prevent the risk of exploitation. Many need educational support and mental health services, but do not receive them.
In 2008, Denmark's parliament unanimously passed a law making it a criminal offence to force anyone to marry. However, six years after the law was enacted, the police have not yet charged a single person and the courts have not convicted anyone under the act. Why? Susanne Fabricius of the national organisation of women's shelters in Denmark said that she did not think this had any impact on protecting women and, in fact, might have backfired and driven the problem underground. I rest my case with that.
Romeo Saganash NDP Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
Mr. Speaker, recognizing human rights is not a zero-sum game. The parliamentarian should know that.
This is the same shameful rhetoric the Conservatives use when it comes to Bill C-51. It was denounced yesterday by the National Chief Perry Bellegarde. He said:
First Nations know better than anyone how easy it is for governments to ignore, erode and eradicate our most basic human rights and freedoms until you barely recognize the land you’re living in.
Why will the government not listen for once?