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.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

That's understood, because you weren't seeking to deal with the charter anyway, and we heard that from the minister.

With respect to these disruption powers, I want to get at the heart of this. Can you speak to why these powers are necessary, and perhaps give us specific examples of where the pre-Bill C-51 powers were insufficient and why existing law enforcement powers are insufficient.

[Michel Coulombe]

I'm not in a position to debate legal threshold, but the other protection we haven't talked about, and I've just mentioned it, is the fact that the Privacy Commissioner can review the information that was exchanged. In the case of the service, SIRC can review all the information that we receive through what is known as SCISA, the act that came through Bill C-51. I believe there is protection.

Now, should the threshold be higher or lower? Again, that's a policy decision for parliamentarians and the government.

[Michel Coulombe]

It is the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act, which comes about as the result of Bill C-51. It must be said that the act is not binding on other departments.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Speaking of sharing information between consular services and Global Affairs Canada, pursuant to the provisions of Bill C-51, how can we be sure that we will not run into another case like that of Maher Arar, where information obtained as a result of torture did not seem to be discredited?

Bill C-51 also provides for agreements that allow information on Canadians detained abroad to be obtained.

In circumstances like those, how can we assure Canadians that the information that you are sharing has not been obtained as a result of torture and we are not once more going through that experience that was supposed to be an opportunity for learning and major reform?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Okay. I have one last question. Going back to what we were discussing before that last question, would Warrant Officer Vincent, in your opinion, still be alive had Bill C-51 been in place?

[Commr Bob Paulson]

Yes, I can. To be fair to everyone who was working on that case, on Couture-Rouleau, we had not.... We didn't obtain a peace bond on Couture-Rouleau. I think it's become easier since then to get a peace bond. Certainly the threshold has changed. Bill C-51 provides for a lesser threshold, which is “reasonable fear”.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Okay, I'm happy to hear that.

You mentioned the fact that you're only allowed to detain somebody for 24 hours. Has that changed with Bill C-51?

[Commr Bob Paulson]

We'll investigate anyone for whom we have a reasonable suspicion that there is a criminal offence being committed. The threshold for bringing charges, though, is a different question. We can arrest someone on reasonable grounds to believe, but we need the support of the prosecution service in order to (a) bring Attorney General consent to a terrorism charge, and (b) support a prosecution. There is an analysis that takes place, because if we were to arrest them we could only hold them for 24 hours, unless we made the case through the recognizance provisions of Bill C-51 that we could hold them for longer.

We try to build a case that will win in court. We enter into the discussion about the spectrum of activities that we collectively engage in to manage the threat, ranging from surveillance, to continued investigation interviews, to peace bonds, etc.

We have many, many active investigations, as do our colleagues at the service, and there's no one out there for whom we have evidence to bring a charge that we're not charging.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Many say part of the problem there is that police don't have resources, and that the reality is Bill C-51 wasn't even necessary because if law enforcement actually had the resources and if there actually were a counter-radicalization strategy, we wouldn't even be debating Bill C-51 now, and that those are the actual tools that would really make a difference.

Do you agree with that?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I'm just asking you to respect your election commitments. We want it to disappear. We want to repeal Bill C-51 .

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Minister, you understand that my time is limited. There are seven bullet points on the Liberal Party website where you have committed to fixing Bill C-51 . In the paragraph at the end of those bullets—and only one of those bullets mentions the oversight committee—there's a specific mention that you'll consult Canadians after presenting legislation, which has not been done.

The concern I am raising, which I think is very serious especially in light of the Privacy Commissioner's report, is that these powers continue to be used. The problems have not been fixed. This committee has not been put in place over a year into your government's mandate, and I understand the bill is moving through the House. That's fine, and there are problems with that, and we'll get to those. But why is there no legislation, and how can we trust these consultations when, beyond the criticisms that have been raised by the Privacy Commissioner and others we've heard from, there's already a list that was committed to in the election and that you yourself just enumerated in your presentation?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Dubé, the fundamental cornerstone commitment that we made in the platform was to create the new committee of parliamentarians. That piece of legislation is now before Parliament, and it will undoubtedly be thoroughly analyzed by this committee and by the public in the process.

There are several other commitments in the platform. It may well take two or three different pieces of legislation to work our way through all of them, but we are moving in a very measured and logical way to deal with the defects that we found in Bill C-51 , to bring this whole new architecture, including the committee of parliamentarians, and in the process, to give Canadians the chance to be heard which they were denied—

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

In respect of that new piece of legislation which was introduced as a part of Bill C-51, in my remarks today I said that the Privacy Commissioner has indicated his view that there are some defects in the process, including whether privacy impact statements have been properly prepared and so forth.

What I've undertaken today, further to my conversation with the Privacy Commissioner a few days ago, is that I will be in touch with every minister in the cabinet to make sure they have the systems in place that will properly respect and protect privacy.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

That was the commitment that was made. There was language in Bill C-51 that tended to contradict that, so that is the issue that needs to be addressed—

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Minister, thanks again for being here. It's always great to have a minister at the committee.

I want to talk about the new powers that were granted under Bill C-51 to CSIS. Basically, it gave them new powers to disrupt potential threats. There are different things, telephone calls, travel plans, etc. Before the changes in Bill C-51, CSIS could only inform police agencies of potential threats and could not act on them alone. Throughout the last election campaign, Mr. Minister, your party basically said they were going to make major changes to it.

Now, the director of CSIS appeared before a Senate committee in March. He indicated that the agency had used their new powers close to two dozen times since Bill C-51 came into force and six more months have passed since then. He also indicated that it is likely that they'd use these powers again in the future. During an interview following being at the Senate committee, the director of CSIS stated that, following the national security review that the government is currently engaged in, a decision would likely be made that could affect the power and others.

Mr. Minister, seeing that if the powers that be would have had the proper things at the time, Corporal Cirillo probably would still be alive.... We were all here two years ago when that happened, and I'm sure you were as well. Also, the would-be terrorist, I believe, in Strathroy a few months ago probably wouldn't have been caught without these new changes.

My question is, do you intend to change them, and if so, how do you see these powers changing? Clearly, they've been effective in disrupting potential threats thus far.