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.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. opposition House leader for his question.

This afternoon we will continue debating economic action plan 2015, our Conservative government's balanced budget, low-tax plan for jobs, growth and security.

He was referring to it and its impact on future generations, and that is where this budget is perhaps at its best, because it delivers long-term prosperity.

With the tax-free savings account, it will provide benefit for generations to come. It helps families save for their children's university education. We have put an additional element in the budget to allow greater flexibility with student loans with calculation of income.

In fact, it is future generations who stand to benefit the most. The most important element from which they benefit, something they would never see under an NDP government, is a balanced budget. That means they will not be paying the freight for generations that came before them for high-spending debt plans that we see from the opposition parties. That is the most important long-term benefit for future generations, so we are very proud of the budget in this regard. Of course, we have been hearing from my colleagues this week that it is a prudent and principled plan that will see Canadians more prosperous, more secure, and everyone confident in Canada's place in the world for some time to come.

While we are focused on creating jobs and putting money back in the pockets of hard-working Canadians, the opposition parties have both confirmed that they want to see higher spending and higher taxes on middle-class families, high taxes on middle-class seniors, high taxes on middle-class consumers. In fact, any tax they can raise, they will probably take a shot at it when they get the chance.

The budget debate will continue on Tuesday and Wednesday of next week.

While I am talking about the budget, I cannot help but note that, when pressed Tuesday night for some detailed insight into the Liberals' economic vision for Canada—something we have been waiting for since the hon. member for Papineau became the Liberal leader two years ago—that member told reporters that he would keep it secret from Canadians for yet more weeks—or months—to come.

I am going to give him an opportunity next week to be courageous and share an actual proposal with Canadians—something beyond the view that budgets balance themselves. Therefore, Monday shall be the second allotted day.

Meanwhile, we will start the report stage debate on Bill C-51, the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, tomorrow. Through this legislation, the government is taking additional action, in line with measures taken by our allies, to ensure our law enforcement and national security agencies can counter those who advocate terrorism, prevent terrorist travel and the efforts of those who seek to use Canada as a recruiting ground, and disrupt planned attacks on Canadian soil.

Next Thursday, after we have concluded the budget debate, we will consider report stage and second reading of Bill S-4, the digital privacy act. This legislation aims to protect better and empower consumers, clarify and streamline rules for business, and enable effective investigations by law enforcement and security agencies.

In anticipation that Bill C-46, the pipeline safety act, will be reported back from committee soon, we will start report stage, and hopefully third reading, after question period that day.

We will round out next week with the debate on Bill C-50, the citizen voting act, at second reading, on Friday.

[Micheal Vonn]

I do absolutely.

We're very much in favour of review and oversight. We bang that gong consistently. We support the recommendations of the Arar inquiry. We are disappointed that Bill C-51 did not include those recommendations. It's the obvious time for them, since we are expanding the powers. We also suggest that the legislation itself is not going to be remedied merely by oversight, but we of course support it.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I'm going to come back to Ms. Vonn.

Ms. Vonn, like us, you consider the privacy of Canadians to be extremely important. That's obvious, and your position on Bill C-51 is very clear. I'd like to know whether you would be favourable to the idea of Parliament overseeing CSIS and other organizations subject to the bill, such as FINTRAC?

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

I am honoured to present a petition opposing Bill C-51, the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015.

At least that is the name that the law bears.

The petitioners point out that it would create, through weak and strangely over-broad definitions, not just abuses of the rights and liberties of Canadians, but actually would not make Canadians safer against security threats.

The petitioners are from Peterborough, Guelph, Waterloo and other areas of Ontario. They are calling on this House to reject Bill C-51.

[Garry W.G. Clement]

I can only speak from my perspective. I do not see an issue with having some accountability on this. I speak from having lived through two enquiries. I had absolutely no problem having to justify what was done and explaining it to an appropriate body. I think that is appropriate.

I believe Bill C-51 has been enacted because of what we're facing today. Do I think it's essential? I'd love to sit here, as I'm sure every one of you would, and say we're not living in the current environment we're in. I firmly believe that what we saw on Parliament Hill isn't over. Let's not do something that means we're all going to have to explain to the public why we took shortcuts in our legislation.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Given some comments about returning to the acts of terrorism, preventing terrorism, and terrorism financing, my concern is that one consideration in Bill C-51 is economic interests of the state. We've had government questions on this, and that's why I'm feeling this is okay territory, but I'll allow the chair to rule if I'm stepping beyond.

We've seen through Air India, and we've seen through Arar that we were incapable of being precise enough about who we were going after, and people were able to finance these activities. Sometimes, as Mr. McGuire said, it takes a very small amount of money, so precision is incredibly important.

Is it fair to say, Mr. Clement, as we go forward, that we need that oversight, that reporting back to Parliament, which you said is no longer done, and that we should be very precise about what we're trying to understand?

[Micheal Vonn]

It's unprecedented because the language is about undermining the security of Canada rather than threatening the security of Canada. We now have legal experts in a conundrum as to what this could possibly mean and the scope of it, to the extent that activities that are captured in undermining the security of Canada could be seen to encompass a vast scale of activities that are completely lawful, as has been demonstrated by the witnesses on Bill C-51.

[Micheal Vonn]

The definition of security of Canada in the information sharing act that's contained in Bill C-51 is unprecedented.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Ms. Vonn, I apologize for missing your official presentation.

One of the concerns and questions we have is that as we see Bill C-51 being presented as an option, too broad a net is being cast. Essentially adding more hay onto the pile doesn't make the needle easier to find. I'd like Mr. Clement's comment on this as well

Mr. Christensen, we've heard from some of the financial institutions that collecting metadata doesn't necessarily always lead to what we want, which is more security, especially if you're storing it all and not cleaning it. You start to capture more and more people without increasing the security and safety of Canadians.

One key concern we've had is around the definition of terrorism. If that then broadens out, and if our ultimate goal is a safer and more secure society, how does the definition weigh into concerns about what comes next under the auspices of protecting us from terrorism, if we're now defining terrorist activity so broadly as to include anything that might oppose government policy or the collection of opposition to Canadian sentiment?

[Micheal Vonn]

I am sorry, but we don't support Bill C-51 as the right tool. I just want to make our perspective is clear.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Bill C-51 is the right tool. We need the oversight.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Will Bill C-51 empower you to do those things?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Thank you all for being here.

I missed the week prior to our break, but I would say that on a personal basis, I find this the most fascinating discussion we've had yet, because we're really getting into the meat of the matter. I don't know where to begin.

Mr. Rafiq, I think you were honest in your evaluation toward the end. The danger of throwing money at a problem is, of course, that we build bureaucracies. Then, rather than treating the problem, we've created this whole structure that now demands to be fed, and that certainly doesn't help.

I don't have enough time, and I think we'd need hours to talk about this, but it would be interesting to hear your thoughts about how we should proceed. I don't want to be cutting, but I suppose you would probably argue that you haven't had enough time to prove that that would be the solution, but how has that worked for you?

The problem is we live in a free society where, as you so eloquently stated and I think it was stated as well by some of the other members, these people are able to just move amongst us. It's so difficult. We don't live in a society like China's in which people get caught, have a quick trial, and join the firing squad in the stadium on Saturday. This is a free society and we value those things.

Ms. Vonn, I think you put that out as well.

I'm going to get to my question, but I just need to get this out, because I know, having worked in this committee and in the ethics committee, that so often we heard from law enforcement that they need tools.

Mr. Clement, I have sons in the law enforcement profession, and we repeatedly hear that they need tools, and the tools they're specifically asking for are the tools we will provide in Bill C-51.

On the other hand, we have the civil liberty groups saying that we're going to impede on people's rights. This is a real problem. I think we recognize it's a real problem.

I'm just going to share something with you very quickly about police officers, and you know this as well. The rank and file, the majority of police officers, are not able to do this work because first of all, they're not trained, and, second, there are so many regulations and so many oversights that impede their work. So this is a real problem. This is something that is not easily remedied.

I have one last point and then I'll get to my question. We know that these groups go to certain areas. I've heard that from police enforcement as well. They will target areas around jails. They'll live in those areas. Even if we were to apply some approach to engaging our population, our young people, these groups know who to target.

I think this has been asked before and I'm going to ask anybody to jump in. Where do we find the balance between what civil liberty groups are asking for and the tools that police enforcement agencies have insisted on for years and years and years?

I'll start with you, Mr. Clement.

[Micheal Vonn]

We certainly echo the concerns of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada as well as those of a number of organizations. We have our own concerns. The notion that simply sharing information should be the panacea for everything that is wrong has become ubiquitous. It is really incredibly problematic, not only from the perspective of security for innocent Canadians, but also from a security perspective. More hay does not make a situation in which it is any easier to find the needle. We need not more information but important and specific information, and so weeding that out is critical.

Bill C-51 is problematic for so many reasons, including the fact that our colleagues here in the U.K. have said that civic and social engagement is the key to ensuring that we don't have increased recruitment. Yet when we have the provisions in Bill C-51 that say that preventing the glorification of terrorism in general will prevent, as any number of security experts have said, the effective engagement of people predisposed, we have to make sure we're dealing with the unintended consequences of our well-meaning legislation, and I urge the committee to do that.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you.

Ms. Vonn, I would assume that you've read Bill C-51 and are aware of the fact that data sharing will increase even more, if just with the Canada Revenue Agency.

Does it concern you that even more organizations will have the power to share information?