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.

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

That’s great. We are looking forward to that.

Let me turn to another matter.

I do not want you to tell us about upcoming bills. However, I would like to have an idea of the amendments that you intend to propose to the provisions in Bill C-51 that are already adopted.

The Liberal Party's Aboriginal People's Commission has asked the government to immediately repeal the provisions of Bill C-51 because they are incompatible with the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People.

Is that an example of an amendment that the Liberal Party could introduce? We in the NDP have always thought that the provisions in that bill must be repealed. What changes to the act do you envisage to ensure that we are respecting the rights and freedoms of Canadians?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is clearly committee proportionality day.

Mr. Minister, thank you for joining us today.

You will not be surprised to learn that I am going to be talking about the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, about Bill C-51, and about everything that will occur as a result. However, I would like to speak more particularly about the fact that, starting next spring, funding for the Security Intelligence Review Committee is going to be reduced by an average of $2.5 million per year, meaning 11 analyst positions.

If I may, I'd like to quote the spokesperson from SIRC on the subject of these cuts, who said, “Our ability to maintain a certain level of coverage and our ability to review CSIS activities broadly and as effectively as possible will obviously be hampered. We haven’t really been given any explanation.”

How do you respond to that, given that Bill C-51 is on the books and the powers being used by CSIS and SIRC are more important than ever?

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, we have engaged in significant consultations with stakeholders. We are going to continue those.

We have made clear commitments about improving Bill C-51. We have made commitments to bringing in an oversight committee of parliamentarians in which all parties will be able to participate, to ensure that our national security agencies and security services are behaving both within respect of the law and the charter, and also doing everything they can to protect Canadians. That is what Canadians expect.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, no, it is not a mistake. It is an illegal act.

The RCMP spied on journalists. That is serious. This requires something other than more rhetoric, clichés, and platitudes.

The RCMP has been caught breaching the rights of Canadians by gathering data on people who simply ask for government information. Worse, it is not even the first time that this has happened. It is a troubling trend when it comes to the government spying on Canadians. As we know, they also spied on journalists at the RCMP.

Bill C-51 was the Conservative attack on our rights and freedoms. Why has the Prime Minister done nothing to get rid of Bill C-51?

Life Means Life Act

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise here today. It is always a pleasure to represent my constituents, the people of Jonquière. I am always proud to speak in the House of Commons.

Issues that affect my region's economy are especially important to me. We talked about this a lot earlier. Unfortunately, the government is dragging its feet on many files, and this includes protecting jobs in the forestry sector. Our farmers are still fighting against diafiltered milk. We have yet to see any measures to improve access to employment insurance, for example in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, since we have a two-tier system.

Today in the House we are debating Bill C-229, which amends the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Let me be very clear: the NDP will be opposing this bill at second reading. It reminds us once again of the many reasons why Canadians sent the previous government packing. This is a bill that seems to have been written on the back of a napkin. It in no way reflects reality.

Instead of spreading misinformation and vote-seeking propaganda, the Conservatives should tell Canadians the truth. Under the current system, the most dangerous offenders who pose a risk to public safety never get out of prison.

We believe in evidence-based policy. Any reforms made to the sentencing regime should focus on improving public safety, not on political games.

The Conservatives have been talking about this bill since 2013, but waited until just a few months before the election was called to announce its introduction at a flashy election-style event. That same day, a Conservative member sent out an email to raise funds and add to the list of Conservative Party members. The subject line of the email was “Murderers in your neighbourhood?” This is another example of the troubling use of the politics of fear by the party that was in power at the time.

The ironic thing about the Conservatives is that they are always the first to want to talk about safety in our communities, but in the last three years, the Conservatives cut RCMP expenditures by millions of dollars. Not so long ago, the commissioner of the RCMP said that they had exhausted their budget and needed more money. That is where investment is needed: in the RCMP and public safety.

I believe that Canadians expect better from politicians. Major issues demand our attention, such as setting a decent minimum wage of $15 an hour and providing better access to employment insurance by making it accessible to everyone in every region.

There is work to do on pay equity and restoring home mail delivery. More resources need to be given to public safety, including the RCMP. Bill C-51 needs to be revisited and the order in council for Bill C-452 on exploitation and trafficking in persons needs to be signed.

Instead, the Conservatives would rather continue to introduce biased bills. Public policy must first and foremost be based on facts, and the objective of such policies must be to keep the public safe, not to win political points. We need to give our public security agencies more resources. We need to take action. We need to invest in prevention in order to prevent crime and help offenders reintegrate into society.

A brilliant lawyer named Michael Spratt said, and I quote:

Throwing away the key is an admission of failure. It amounts to admitting that our prisons are warehouses, that rehabilitation is a lie, that the law that holds us together as a society is still the law of the jungle — an eye for an eye. It’s the politics of despair.

I cannot give a speech about crime without thinking of the victims. Today, my thoughts are with all the victims, particularly the victims of crime. Some of them may be watching right now. Too often we forget the impact of crime on their lives and on the lives of their families, particularly when someone is killed. The NDP has always cared about victims and that is why we think it is so important to implement truly effective policies to keep the public safe.

The Conservatives should do a bit more research before introducing bills. In the current system, the most dangerous criminals who pose a threat to public safety never get out of prison. That is why any reforms made to the sentencing regime should focus on improving public safety and increasing financial resources, rather than on unconstitutional bills.

My opposition colleagues should know that it is up to the Attorney General to ensure that the laws that are introduced by the government are constitutional. However, once again, the Conservatives are introducing a bill that will more than likely end up being challenged in the courts. Many of their bills, some of which were mentioned today in the House, have already been deemed unconstitutional by the court.

I wonder whether my Conservative colleagues respect the principle of constitutionality and the separation of powers. We live in a democracy, but I all too often have the impression that they do not really believe it.

I will come right out with the question and it is up to them to answer it. Do they believe that it is important for parliamentarians to introduce bills that are constitutional? I will give them a chance to answer this question, which I believe is a very simple but important one.

In my view, it is essential that we put forward public policies that are based on facts and comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and our Constitution.

[Greta Bossenmaier]

Thank you for the question.

In terms of our assistance mandate, federal law enforcement security organizations may request CSE's technical assistance, an important part of our overall mandate and, aptly, that's in part C of our assistance mandate. In order for us to consider the request, the organization has to have the lawful authority to be able to ask us. If an organization has the lawful authority, and as my colleague pointed out, if we've confirmed that they have that, we can consider providing that assistance to them.

In terms of Bill C-51 in particular, that bill has not impacted CSE directly, in the sense it's not changing CSE's authorities, etc. It has altered CSIS' authorities. If they, again, had the lawful authority to ask us, we could consider assisting them in their lawful mandate. But it's not directly affecting our mandate. Our mandate stays the same under that reference to the National Defence Act that you made.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you.

I have a second question before giving the floor to Mr. Bezan.

In your mandate described in subsection 273.64(1) of the National Defence Act, it mentions an assistance role in paragraph (c): “to provide technical and operational assistance to federal law enforcement and security agencies in the performance of their lawful duties.”

Is Bill C-51 currently of capital importance in order for you to be able to perform those duties?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

The USA Freedom Act has revised the USA Patriot Act, which was passed shortly after 9/11 and it required certain phone companies to give the NSA bulk records, metadata, and the number, dates, times, and duration of phone calls, but not the identity of callers or the contents of the conversations.

Would a similar amendment to Bill C-51, removing your ability to collect metadata, impact your ability to carry out your mandate?

Public Safety

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, the plan with respect to Bill C-51 was laid out very clearly in our election platform.

Step one, in respect of that, will be taken, hopefully, before this Parliament rises for the summer. That is the presentation of legislation having to do with a new overview mechanism, involving a committee of parliamentarians. Step two was in the budget. That was the creation of a new office on counter-radicalization. We will be conducting major national consultations with Canadians to determine what further they want to see to happen.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, after voting in favour of Bill C-51, the Conservatives' dangerous and ineffective spy bill, the Liberals changed their tune during the election, when they promised to repeal problematic elements of the draconian bill “without delay”.

Seven months later, the minister has accomplished nothing. Meanwhile, we have reports of unauthorized spying on journalists by the RCMP, and Canadians are increasingly worried about their civil liberties.

Why are the Liberals breaking their promise on Bill C-51 and leaving Canadians' civil liberties at risk?

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it has come to our attention that RCMP officers spied on journalists without authorization. There needs to be an investigation into this.

In the meantime, the Liberals still have not made good on their promise to revisit Bill C-51, which they voted for.

Bill C-51 is an affront to liberty and gives unprecedented powers to our intelligence services without any accountability.

When will the minister keep his promise and take action to respect our civil liberties?

[William F. Pentney]

I'm sorry, I don't have that particular figure. That will depend on the demand for legal services involving various activities related to Bill C-51. We have been allocating some resources, for example, to training both departmental officials and others around the rules and guidelines and procedures that the law requires in respect of information sharing.

We will be able to report next year on how much we spent in implementing Bill C-51, but right now it's in a sense anticipatory.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Yes, but also, according to your report on plans and priorities, you're going to be providing legal services in support of Bill C-51. Generally, how much is that going to cost?

[William F. Pentney]

The spending, as the question indicates, is in respect of division 9 on security certificates and related closed proceedings. It does not relate to the administration of Bill C-51. Security certificates have been a part of the regime and have been evolved in accordance with Supreme Court decisions and practice over a number of years.

Part of that evolution required the appointment of special advocates to advocate and challenge in these closed hearings. That's what this money relates to; it relates to legal advice and litigation support for Immigration and Canada Border Services Agency. It also relates in part to spending for special advocates.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

It's just one question.

Thank you to Mr. Nicholson for allowing me to clarify this. When I said kids in that question, of course I didn't mean to suggest anything to the contrary. Of course, children will still be subject to marijuana laws.

When saying what I did, I guess I was reacting to young Canadians, because I get letters from parents all the time about the injustice of the situation we're currently facing—what Mr. Justice Selkirk called the “ludicrous situation” that exists. Thank you for letting me clarify that.

Concerning Bill C-51, I want to ask you to comment on the scale of your department's spending in relation to implementing Bill C-51. The estimates for Justice Canada include an additional $6.8 million for activities relating to division 9 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which is of course the security certificates part. More than half of the $8.4 million increase over last year's main estimates for the court administration service relates to these proceedings.

First, I just want to know what impact Bill C-51 has had on the number and cost of these proceedings. More broadly, could you comment on your spending in relation to Bill C-51's implementation?