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

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

Mr. Speaker, the review committee is independent and reviews activities.

However, Bill C-51 provides for ongoing review mechanisms, such as judicial consent and the authorization of the attorney general. The people who protect us should not be treated like criminals. It is not true to say that they are breaking the law. We have a report from the review committee itself. The agents are doing important work and we must not undermine their credibility.

I urge parliamentarians to respect those who protect us in their debates.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear.

We know that Bill C-51, in its current form, is flawed. The government, with the help of the Liberals, is fiddling with what we hold most dear: our rights and our safety.

After ramming through the bill at second reading, the government would like us to blindly pass Bill C-51 at committee.

Will the minister agree to listen to Canadians and ensure that former prime ministers and Supreme Court judges, who are asking us to be careful, will have the opportunity to explain why they deem that Bill C-51 goes much too far?

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

Mr. Speaker, there we have the minister hiding behind fear again, instead of committing to a proper study. It is no wonder that he will not, when every day new information is coming out about critical flaws in Bill C-51. Experts are warning that the bill could create a legal grey area, mixing the roles of CSIS and the RCMP. Cases could be left in limbo without any possible criminal charges. Bill C-51 needs a full study, hearing from experts and concerned Canadians.

Why are the Conservatives so afraid of being accountable for a bill that affects all of us?

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-51 has been roundly condemned by security experts for being over-broad, vague, and ineffectual. It would sacrifice Canadians' rights and freedoms to give security agencies new powers without any new oversight. Rather than answer questions or address these problems, the Conservatives have rammed Bill C-51 through this House.

Are the Conservatives now also going to try to railroad it through committee? Will the government commit today to a full and proper study of this sweeping security bill?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder they want to avoid any serious study of this bill.

Ramming Bill C-51 through without improved oversight is reckless. Despite the Prime Minister's insistence, the Security Intelligence Review Committee is not an oversight body; it is a review body that looks at what CSIS does after the fact. SIRC's spokesperson is clear: “...we are not involved in the operational decision-making”.

Does the Prime Minister still maintain that SIRC is adequate oversight of CSIS when even the committee itself says it is not?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, so it is a no.

As Mr. Fahmy's case so clearly illustrates, serious human rights violations can be committed in the name of national security. That is why, unlike the Liberals who blindly support the government, the NDP believes it is essential to seriously study Bill C-51.

Does the Prime Minister recognize that it is important to study this bill at length and ensure that security and human rights experts are not only heard, but also listened to?

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, comparing Bill C-51 with Canada v. Carter is a real stretch, but I will accept that 82% of people who have responded with regard to Bill C-51 are in favour of what our government is doing, and that is pretty significant to me.

With regard to Canada v. Carter, the fact is that this is very personal, well beyond something a police officer should look at. This is about human life. This is about a decision between people and their physicians as to whether they believe they should live or die.

We need to have broad consultation on this to ensure that we get it right, because we need to get this right. I believe the best way to move forward is with extreme broad consultation, which our government will propose and move forward with.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to mix apples with oranges, but when we look at Bill C-51, the Conservatives may limit expert testimony on the anti-terror bill. They may want to limit the number of experts. Canadians want to know more about it and experts want to get involved. In this case, the Conservatives want to shut down the debate.

In the other case, it seems the Conservatives want to open the debate up to 33 million people and they want to take two years if it is possible. However, for the anti-terrorism bill, which Canadians are very concerned about it, they are saying no, that they do not want to hear from them. The Conservatives have the answer.

I would like to hear his comments, especially since his former job was a police officer in the justice system. As a justice person, he should be able to give me a good answer on this.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, U.S. President Barack Obama recently commented that the climate crisis is a bigger threat to security than terrorism, whereas here in Canada, the RCMP has put forward a report that characterizes people working for progress on the climate crisis as anti-petroleum ideologues. It reflects a real lack of understanding of the science.

This is very worrying, particularly in light of the measures proposed in Bill C-51. To the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, what measures will he take to educate the RCMP as to the real threat of climate change so that it understands the science and understands that the threat is not the people who want to get us off of fossil fuels but the people who pander to the oil industry?

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, our balanced bill includes measures to prevent radicalization, in particular by allowing intelligence officers to reduce the threat by, for example, visiting the parents of a child who could fall prey to radicalization and shutting down websites that spread jihadist propaganda.

These are concrete examples from Bill C-51, a bill that is necessary and that has been well received. It is very important for parliamentarians to send it to committee so that it can be fully debated. This evening we will have the opportunity to vote for Bill C-51 in order to protect Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives should have consulted experts before introducing Bill C-51.

Canadians expect the government to defend our freedoms and values while keeping us safe. However, Bill C-51 completely misses the mark. The Conservatives are asking the RCMP to neglect some aspects of our security and are flatly refusing to use proven methods for combatting radicalization.

Why are the Conservatives so insistent on doing something that clearly does not work?

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

Mr. Speaker, at a time when we are facing a terrorist threat from jihadist extremists who are targeting Canada, it is completely irresponsible to want to just sit back and do nothing.

Today, members will have an opportunity to rise and support protecting Canada against terrorism by voting for Bill C-51. This balanced bill has five measures. We can debate them in committee with experts and representatives and study the bill clause by clause. The responsible thing to do today is to support it and take action to protect Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, we all agree public safety is important, but it must never be used as an excuse for dividing Canadians.

There is growing criticism that Bill C-51 goes too far. First nations in particular are sounding the alarm about how the bill would impact them. Grand Chief Terrance Nelson spoke out, saying, “Treaty rights, land rights, natural resource development, any protest like that, they could be considered eco terrorists”.

Does the government not understand that the bill is not just about terrorism? Is it really blind to the fact it can also target legitimate dissent and take away fundamental rights of Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, from the day the Prime Minister announced Bill C-51 in a campaign-style event, this has been about politics and not about protecting Canadians.

Bill C-51 is a 62-page omnibus bill that amends no fewer than 13 acts, and despite ministers not being clear and sometimes even contradicting each other on the bill, the Conservatives still want to force it through after only a few hours of debate.

If the government is so confident about the bill, why is it ramming it through to avoid debate? Why is it trying to keep it away from public scrutiny?

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

Mr. Speaker, as we saw again this weekend, the threat from extreme jihadists is real and is targeting places here in Canada. That is why I encourage all members to support Bill C-51.

For us, safety and freedom go hand in hand. Indeed, we have a bill that will ensure that there is even greater judicial oversight and that the attorney general must give his or her consent. Let us send this bill to committee and get the job done for Canadians.