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:
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Mr. Speaker, the truth is that Bill C-51 does not contain anything that would give hope to the parents whose children are being radicalized. The Conservatives are more interested in scoring political points than they are in preventing radicalization.
A serious examination of Bill C-51 is absolutely necessary. We offered to sit evenings and weekends if necessary.
Why is the minister afraid of having his bill thoroughly reviewed? What does he have to hide?
Public SafetyOral Questions
February 26th, 2015 / 2:30 p.m.
Lévis—Bellechasse Québec
Conservative
Steven Blaney ConservativeMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-51 will allow us to pre-emptively stop people who are likely to be radicalized.
Why is the NDP opposed to hearing from almost 50 experts, including the Minister of Justice, myself and our experts from the Department of Justice and the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness? What are they hiding? Why are they afraid of a democratic debate on terrorism?
Canadians expect us to get this done by June in order to protect them against the terrorist threat.
Public SafetyOral Questions
February 26th, 2015 / 2:25 p.m.
Lévis—Bellechasse Québec
Conservative
Steven Blaney ConservativeMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, if Canadians are watching the debate on Bill C-51, they will wonder why the NDP is obstructing a democratic process. There are more than 48 witnesses. I am told by my colleague that there are more than nine sessions. My counterpart, the Minister of Justice, and I are ready to appear with the department officials.
Why is the NDP obstructing a democratic process and preventing us from protecting Canadians?
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are watching the debate on Bill C-51 carefully. They want parliamentarians to do their jobs to review this sweeping bill thoroughly and to allow Canadians who want to be heard to appear before the public safety committee.
Why do the Conservatives want to ram this bill through the committee when there are significant problems with the legislation?
In 2001, 19 meetings were held on the Anti-terrorism Act and over 100 amendments were adopted. Could the minister explain why his parliamentary secretary refuses to give Bill C-51 equal attention?
Aboriginal AffairsOral Questions
February 26th, 2015 / 2:20 p.m.
Lévis—Bellechasse Québec
Conservative
Steven Blaney ConservativeMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, first, we have the greatest respect for aboriginal peoples. We respect the rights of all Canadians. Nonetheless, we also have a responsibility to oppose terrorism, violence and Criminal Code offences.
Again, I invite the member to consult Bill C-51, where it is clearly indicated that peaceful protest is exempt. I invite him to reread the bill. If he needs help, we can go to committee. The NDP can stop obstructing the process and we can talk about the bill in committee.
Romeo Saganash NDP Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
Mr. Speaker, section 35 of the Constitution protects the rights of aboriginal peoples. Most aboriginal people feel that Bill C-51 threatens that protection. Given how often law enforcement has described our demonstrations as illegal, I cannot help but be concerned that we will be lumped in with terrorists.
Will the minister realize that Bill C-51 is unconstitutional and threatens the rights of aboriginal peoples?
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, in 2010, the Conservatives committed to improving oversight of our national security agencies. They also promised a mechanism to ensure that the RCMP and CSIS are accountable and obey the law. That was over four years ago and the Conservatives have still done nothing.
How can they be trusted on Bill C-51 when they do not even keep their own promises?
Public SafetyOral Questions
February 25th, 2015 / 2:35 p.m.
Lévis—Bellechasse Québec
Conservative
Steven Blaney ConservativeMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, we have increased the budget for intelligence services and the RCMP seven times, despite a lack of support from the opposition.
It is important to remember the measures that we have introduced, such as the legislation to combat terrorism, revoke passports and revoke the dual citizenship of individuals found guilty of terrorism, as well as Bill C-51, which is before us now.
Why do the New Democrats oppose the measures that we are putting in place to protect Canadians?
Let us send this bill to committee, examine the issue and, most importantly, take action. Canadians expect us to do something about this.
Public SafetyOral Questions
February 25th, 2015 / 2:35 p.m.
Lévis—Bellechasse Québec
Conservative
Steven Blaney ConservativeMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, the measures set out in Bill C-51 are designed to protect Canadians.
It is a no-brainer to share information, prevent terrorists from boarding our planes and allow intelligence officers to dissuade people from falling prey to radicalization.
Bill C-51 contains measures to prevent radicalization and it is consistent with Canadian laws.
What are the New Democrats afraid of? For years, they have consistently opposed all of the measures that we have put in place to protect Canadians from the terrorist threat. Why?
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to square that answer with the government's impressive record for passing unconstitutional legislation.
Instead of real scrutiny at committee, what the Conservatives seem to prefer is rubber stamp approval. However, it is precisely because the minister has been unwilling or unable to answer critical questions about this sweeping bill in the House, that Bill C-51 needs full study at committee.
Why is the government always seeking to shut down debate instead of allowing a serious review of sweeping and dangerous legislation like Bill C-51.
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is also the Attorney General of Canada. It is his responsibility to assess whether bills introduced here, in Parliament, are legally valid. Experts are already questioning the constitutionality of certain aspects of Bill C-51.
Did the Minister of Justice do his homework and obtain a legal opinion on whether Bill C-51 is constitutional, and will he undertake to submit it to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, which is responsible for studying the bill?
Thomas Mulcair NDPLeader of the Opposition
Barn burnings, Maher Arar, there is a history, Mr. Speaker, and we stand up in favour of the rights and freedoms of Canadians.
However, it is not just security experts who understand that Bill C-51 goes too far. First nations are raising the alarm. The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs is clear:
—Bill C-51 directly violates the ability of all Indigenous Peoples to exercise, assert and defend their constitutionally-protected and judicially-recognized Indigenous Title and Rights to their respective territories.
Again, Bill C-51 goes well beyond terrorism and will impact constitutionally-protected dissent and protest.
Why is the Prime Minister afraid to hear from first nations themselves?
Public SafetyOral Questions
February 25th, 2015 / 2:20 p.m.
Lévis—Bellechasse Québec
Conservative
Steven Blaney ConservativeMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, I am confident that the committee will be diligent and professional in examining this bill, which is so important to Canadians, in order to protect them from the terrorist threat.
I hope that delay tactics will not be used to stop the committee from examining this important bill since that would prevent Canadians from benefiting from the excellent additional measures found in Bill C-51.
Thomas Mulcair NDPLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary committee that will examine and analyze Bill C-51 has the delicate task of protecting both the security and the rights and freedoms of Canadians.
After imposing a gag order on the debate in the House, the government now also seems to want to limit the debate in committee. That does not make any sense. This is a complex law and it is imperative that we hear from experts, legal minds and community leaders, as the Edmonton city police said today.
Will the government give the parliamentary committee time to do its work properly for once?
Brent Rathgeber Independent Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Defence says that Bill C-51 would protect civil liberties by ensuring that the powers of oversight are vested in the courts. However, in 2013 CSIS was censured by Federal Court judge Richard Mosley for not disclosing relevant information and for deliberately misleading his court.
This weekend, retired Supreme Court Justice John Major said that he was puzzled at the government's reluctance to provide better oversight over Canada's spy agencies. The judges themselves understand that warrant obtainment alone is simply inadequate.
The government is fond of dismissing criticism from the bench, which it labels as unelected, meddling, and interventionist, so why the sudden conversion by placing such confidence in the courts to provide effective oversight?