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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives did everything they could to limit debate on Bill C-51. In the end they did what they wanted and only passed their own amendments.

That is not going to solve the problems with Bill C-51, especially the issue of oversight. In its Report on Plans and Priorities, the Security Intelligence Review Committee states that at this time it is unable to review most of CSIS's activities. That is very serious.

Why are the Conservatives refusing to face the truth and withdraw Bill C-51?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I echo my colleagues' remarks on both sides in thanking everyone here, the staff, and of course the chair for bringing in—it's still questionable—either pork or turkey tonight. We'll find out tomorrow who's sick and who's not. Those who ate vegetarian might be doing very well tomorrow and the rest of us sick.

On a more serious note, the reason that we find ourselves here on Bill C-51 is the recent events that have happened around the world, including here in Canada. We have had incidents of terror back on October 22. All of us in this room were impacted by that. We witnessed the video that was released by the RCMP, or a portion of that video. For those who didn't fully believe what we're facing I think that video spoke for itself. I know I had great difficulties watching that video and reading the printed text that was provided.

With regard to the legislation there were five distinct parts to this bill, each one unique and separate from the others. There were legislative gaps that were clearly identified by our national security agencies, and we heard testimony to that effect. This bill clearly addressed those legislative gaps. We brought in on this side witnesses dealing with law enforcement, intelligence gathering, experts in terrorism-related issues, and every single one of those witnesses talked about how the threat is real, it has evolved, and it's growing.

Of those credible witnesses who we brought in some of them had more than 30 years experience in these areas. All of those individuals indicated how much this bill is needed. The measures contained within it related to information sharing are absolutely crucial. There were amendments to the Criminal Code to reduce the threat level so that they can actually be able to use some of these amendments, or these Criminal Code sections, and of course the added powers to CSIS. We had one witness say that they couldn't believe this was not already the case.

Having said that, we also heard from witnesses—actually on some of the same committee meetings—who sat here as witnesses and indicated that this bill had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism, that it was simply there to instill fear and target groups. It's absolutely not the case.

As the government we brought forward amendments to really explicitly say that this bill does not target protestors, which was already implied in the legislation and which we have been reinforcing and reminding opposition members on every single day. I have personally gone on panels to say that this bill does not target protest. So I'm hoping that the amendments that came forward today, the testimony that we had from the experts that clearly indicated what the information sharing was about, can put those fears to rest.

It's really unfortunate, Mr. Chair, that throughout this process there's been misinformation about this bill. Hopefully, it's not been intentional. I think today some of those misconceptions were clarified by the witnesses, and I really thank you for that testimony and for being here. I'm hoping that it will put to rest some of the concerns that may be out there that are not necessarily legitimate concerns. In fact, we actually had a witness say it was very unhelpful for this process when at the fact of this bill is the national security of this country, the safety and security of Canadians, and providing the tools necessary to our national security agencies to better protect both of those things.

So on closing I would just like to thank you, Mr. Chair, and committee members on all sides of the House, and especially all of the staff and the witnesses who were here with us throughout this entire process.

Thank you.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Garrison took a little shot my way by saying that there are two parties supporting the bill, and I would say this about our position as the Liberal Party. We're the only party in the House of Commons that isn't taking a rigid position on this bill and we are trying to find the balance.

I'd certainly thank the two Justice officials for being here tonight. I think they did give us a number of clarifications, not that we agree with them all. We certainly appreciate the information that they provided to the committee. Certainly, on behalf of my party, I want to thank all the witnesses who have appeared before us.

I had hoped the government might accept more amendments than the ones that they did, and was hopeful that we would get somewhere on oversight; I know it's been ruled out of order, Mr. Chair.

Similar to that of our Five Eyes partners, we had an all-party committee at the House of Commons in 2004 to make such a recommendation. Mr. Norlock sat on a committee in 2009 that agreed with that recommendation and others, and I would have liked to see some progress on sunsets and overall statutory review.

Having said that, let me close with this, in terms of our position. Although we're not comfortable with some of the issues—some of the amendments not being carried on the civil liberties and freedom of expression side—the way I look at this, we can always fix a bad bill in the future. We cannot fix an incident that would damage infrastructure and maybe take Canadian lives.

There are security measures in this bill—given what both police authorities and national security agencies have indicated, and based on my previous experience in government—that I think we have to recognize and take seriously.

There is no question in my mind that there is an increased threat. In order to prevent as best we can—and we can only prevent as best we can—that threat from doing damage to Canadians, it's for that reason that we are supporting this bill, recognizing that there are some amendments that should have been made on the civil liberty side but were not accepted by the government's side.

There we sit, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before I talk any more about the bill, I would like to say something. The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security has just been through two extremely tough weeks. We have heard from 48 witnesses, including the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, all at sometimes impossibly tough hours of the day.

The days have been very long—even today's meeting began early this morning—not only for us, but also for our staff. All of the members here are always accompanied by staff, interpreters, people who take care of feeding us and people who make sure the committee runs smoothly. I would like to take a moment to thank all of them, because, frankly, their work over the past couple of weeks has been extraordinary.

I also want to thank the people who are following the debate, either here—since there are still some people in the room—or at home. I'm sure that some people are very interested in the whole debate surrounding Bill C-51. I want to thank them for paying attention. Without those people who care about what's happening, our work as parliamentarians would not serve much purpose. Regardless of our political views on a legislative measure like Bill C-51, it is good to raise questions and concerns, to share our point of view and to pay attention to what public opinion has to say about a piece of legislation as delicate as Bill C-51. I wanted to thank everyone for that.

Of course, I cannot hide that am disappointed this evening. We have worked really, really hard to try to improve the parts of the bill that we thought needed some improvement. As everyone knows, after carefully studying the bill and after taking the time to look at every part of the bill, the NDP has decided to vote against it at second reading. There were many parts of this bill that we didn't want to touch because we thought they should be removed altogether. We will continue working on that. We believe that many of the bill's provisions are a direct attack on Canadians' civil liberties and basic rights. I am not prepared to make any concessions on that.

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has already said this in the House of Commons and here before the committee. I completely agree with him that civil liberties and public safety should always go hand in hand. He is quite right.

In this bill, however, I could not find what he was talking about. I learned last Friday that the Conservatives were going to amend the bill. The minister also said that he was going to let the committee do its work and that he would be open to amendments. I must say, I was looking forward to some real openness this time, in order to be able to strike a balance between civil liberties, basic rights and public safety. Personally, I was not satisfied with the results, unfortunately.

I will continue to oppose this bill. I have principles. I know that many other people around this table also have principles. We do not all have the same principles. I stick to my principles. We all want the same thing: to combat terrorism and radicalization by passing the best possible legislation; however, we all have different ways of achieving that objective.

Personally, my principles have not changed: I would like to see greater civilian oversight, adequate budgets for our police services and good eradication strategies on the ground. I will continue to fight for these rights and for my basic rights.

Thank you.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I know we've been here a long time, but I do have a few things I wish to say at this point. It's sometimes hard to follow when we have the two parties that are supporting the bill arguing the most during the evening. I know that sometimes confuses the people who are watching.

Mr. Norlock made the remark that it's the opposition's duty, or our goal, to cast aspersions on the legislation. I don't need to be reminded of my responsibility, because mine is not to cast aspersions on the legislation; it's to get better legislation in the committee through amendment.

I have to say that I am disappointed that the government's record here is quite clear in rejecting every single suggestion that anyone else has made about their bill, with only their three very modest changes made. In fact “modest” would be a large word to describe the changes that have been made. They're welcome changes but they're very, very modest changes that don't affect this bill.

We'll still be seeking, when we get to report stage, to delete the provisions that we think are most threatening to Canadians' rights and freedoms. That's the vague new criminal offence that tends to lump dissent together with violent extremism. We'll also be trying to get rid of the lower thresholds for preventative detention and for recognizance with conditions. Of course, we heard again and again from witnesses about the dangers of CSIS' new powers of disruption, which, in view of the McDonald commission, which created CSIS, I can't imagine why we're even considering at this time.

We did try to add some effective provisions to those things missing from Bill C-51 this evening. Of course, three of the four things we were trying to do there were ruled out of order. That was to strengthen existing oversight of our security and intelligence agencies and come up with a parliamentary system of oversight that would actually work. Probably the most important, to me, was the attempt to establish a community outreach and de-radicalization coordinator to work with those communities, in particular Muslim and Jewish communities, who have both been working very hard to try to prevent youth being swayed to extremist and sometimes violent ideologies. The fourth of those was trying to have three-year review and sunset clauses. Those, of course, were in order but were all defeated. We also tried to limit the scope of information sharing, to protect Canadians' privacy rights, and to narrow the information sharing envisioned by this bill. Those were, of course, also defeated. Finally, we tried to improve the no-fly list so that those who inadvertently, through no fault of their own and through no misbehaviour of their own, end up caught somehow on the no-fly list have an effective appeal mechanism. We didn't get that either.

From the beginning, we didn't hear all the witnesses who wanted to appear. Of those witnesses we did hear, something like 45 out of 48 said we needed major changes to the bill...or abandoning the bill. We did not get major changes, and we've certainly seen that the government intends to press ahead with this bill.

At the end of this committee process, I wish to thank all those witnesses who appeared and to express my disappointment that the many very good suggestions they made to us, whether in written briefs or when they were here in person, were not listened to by the government and taken up in an attempt to produce a bill that really would meet the threats we face in an effective way while at the same time protecting our Canadian rights and freedoms.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Garrison.

Yes, as you've intimated, the chair is going to rule on this. It is deemed as inadmissible, and the chair will give the reasons as follows.

The amendment seeks to create a parliamentary committee on security and intelligence oversight, which would have as its mandate oversight of regulations and activities in the area of intelligence. The mandate would include activities and regulations from all departments, agencies, and civilian and military bodies involved in the collection, analysis, and dissemination of intelligence related to Canada's national security. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, and of course on the advice of our legislative clerk, the mandate of this proposed committee is much broader than what was envisioned and contained in Bill C-51, and it is therefore beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore I rule the amendment inadmissible

We will now go to PV-59, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't really agree with my colleagues on the government side with respect to asking a committee to study or review the legislation given that we do that all the time. Indeed, we always choose committees, whether it be to study bills or to review them.

Consequently, I do not quite see how that would change anything at all, since we have specifically selected—and with good reason—the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to study Bill C-51. I don't see how any other committee could be chosen to study it. It just makes sense that this bill would be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, for instance, and for the committee to have to produce a report after 30 months.

Once again, I must point out that that is part of our job as parliamentarians. I know that some committee members have been here a lot longer than I have. They know how privileged we are to be here. Studying and reviewing the provisions of various bills is part of our job as parliamentarians. That is why I plan to support the amendment.

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

We're just having a discussion about who was going to do this one as the night wears on.

I believe this one will be within the scope of the bill, but we can always play the lottery game and find out. We're asking for a report to Canada on the provisions of this act to be undertaken by a committee designated or established for that purpose, so within one year we are asking the committee to look at what we will have done here in the passage of Bill C-51. I know the members on the other side will say that any committee can always do this, but if we require that it be done, then other things don't take precedence over it and we'll make sure that it does happen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Are there further comments before the chair rules?

Seeing none, I note that this amendment does propose to modify sections of the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act.

As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states, “...an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill”.

Since the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act is not being amended by Bill C-51, it is therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

(Clauses 61 and 62 agreed to)

We will now go to proposed new clause 63 in amendment NDP-27.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment is an attempt to create a sunset provision to the changes that are brought into effect in Bill C-51 relating to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to take effect on the third anniversary from the coming into force of this section.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I think there really is a need for special advocates on this amendment, Mr. Chair. I think it would bring more balance to the decision.

I'd ask the Justice officials who are here. I forget which court case this was related to. I believe it might even have been Arar's.

A CBC story pointed out that the amendment in Bill C-51 in clause 54 related only to disclosing material that is “relevant to the grounds of inadmissibility stated in the certificate”. It has been pointed out that that will contradict previous Supreme Court rulings on what the crown must provide to the special advocate.

Can the Justice officials explain how that is appropriate in the bill? In other words, the Supreme Court ruled that all the information needed to be disclosed. As I understand it, this narrows what information can be disclosed.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is my first amendment dealing with part 5 of the bill. I think it's a fair statement, having sat through the committee hearings, that this was the least studied section as we went through the process of reviewing Bill C-51, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act section.

The changes in the language that are found in section 54, the insertion in relation to what the minister must file with the court in order to get a security certificate.... The new language is “that is relevant to the ground of inadmissibility stated in the certificate”.

It's very strange language. We've consulted with a number of special advocates who have found this to be essentially poor drafting. It's confusing. The words, “The ground of inadmissibility”, information “on which the certificate is based”, and “the case made by the Minister” are likely to lead to confusion for the court about what needs to be shared with special advocates.

The language as amended here is to replace the confusing language found in the current version with:

and all other information related to the information's origin and reliability, as well as

“a summary of information”, and so on with the rest of it.

There is a risk here—and Professor Donald Galloway, from the University of Victoria, has identified it—that the way it's currently drafted could allow a minister to submit to a judge information that had been obtained by torture, without revealing that to a judge. That is also a concern.

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

Thank you, Mr. Easter, for the question.

Yes, we have the same problem with the scope of the bill. We would like very much to have had the SIRC chair become an officer of Parliament with responsibility over the other national security agencies through a sort of super-SIRC. But again, we run into problems with the scope of bill and rules here in the House and would not have been able to accomplish that under the purview of Bill C-51.

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

We are talking a lot about sunset clauses with revision, but this really has to do with the new powers being granted to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. It is doubly important to adopt a sunset clause in that regard. The recent Bill C-44 gives CSIS a lot of powers. Bill C-51 gives CSIS additional new powers. It is important that we do our job here and review the legislation to see whether everything is working.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My colleagues will probably be extremely surprised to hear that the NDP's amendment No. 16 proposes a sunset clause, with a review of the law after three years. I won't go into the details. I think that we've already covered this a number of times with other clauses in this bill.

I think it is very important for parliamentarians and the government to conduct a review to determine whether different clauses of a bill as important as Bill C-51 will have an impact and whether they are working. That is our duty. I think it's important to add this sunset clause to clause 2 of Bill C-51.

Thank you.