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.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today. It is extremely important to have you here so that we can better understand the intricacies of Bill C-51.

Perhaps I misunderstood some of the distinctions that you made. I reread the definition that is being used by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. I do not see why the 17 federal institutions affected by Bill C-51 could not use this definition, which seems to include a lot of things. The definition includes espionage, sabotage, foreign-influenced activities, activities that promote the use of violence, and so on. The definition that CSIS is currently using already includes a lot of things.

First, why could the 17 federal institutions affected by Bill C-51 not use that definition? What would that change?

Second, if I understood correctly, CSIS is one of the 17 institutions that will be affected by the definition set out in Bill C-51. In a way, the bill would not change the definition used by CSIS. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Good morning, colleagues, and welcome to meeting number 62 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Of course, today we will be dealing with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-51.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed.

(On clause 2—Enactment)

We have NDP amendment number one.

Yes, Mr. Easter.

[Daniel Therrien, Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the invitation to address you today.

The subject of your study, Canada's regime for combatting the financing of terrorism, is clearly a timely one.

As you are aware, in light of Bill C-51 and other recent legislative activity, the past year has seen much public debate about the rules that regulate how information is collected, shared and analyzed by and among our law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Indeed, information sharing is a very important aspect of combatting crime and terrorism. It can also, however, pose risks from a privacy perspective.

Operating under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, FINTRAC is one agency that is a key player in information gathering and sharing, and one that my office has had many interactions with over the years.

As I outlined in my recent submission on Bill C-51, in a country governed by the rule of law, it should not be left for national security agencies to determine the limits of their powers. Generally, the law should prescribe clear and reasonable standards for the sharing, collection, use and retention of personal information, and compliance with these standards should be subject to independent and effective review mechanisms, including the courts.

In this case, the legal standards are established under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and accompanying regulations, which I find to be reasonable in their current state, as they target individuals and organizations suspected of criminal or terrorist activity or financial transactions of a significant value. This could change as a result of Bill C-51 or other measures currently under consideration that would require the sharing of all electronic transfers regardless of the amounts involved.

In terms of review, the office of the commissioner is mandated to conduct biennial reviews of FINTRAC's personal information handling safeguards, under section 72 of the enabling legislation. We also measure their activities against sections 4 to 8 of the Privacy Act, under our authority to conduct reviews as outlined in section 37 of that act.

While we know that current laws and regulations contain reasonable standards, our audits have found problems with the collection and retention of personal information in excess of these standards. We have found that some of the information shared with FINTRAC related to activities that did not demonstrate reasonable grounds to suspect money laundering or terrorist financing, and that FINTRAC was retaining data that is not relevant to its mandate. This presents an unquestionable risk to privacy by making available personal information for use and sharing that should never have been provided to FINTRAC.

To address this problem, after consulting with FINTRAC, we've prepared guidance for private sector organizations to reduce the risk of overreporting in violation of the risk to privacy. Furthermore, explicit authority under subsection 54(2) of the PCMLTFA, Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, as enacted by Bill C-31, was also recently granted to FINTRAC for the destruction of information that is not related to money laundering or terrorist financing. Despite these initiatives, the risk of overreporting and retention remains, and we will be paying particular attention to this issue in our upcoming two-year review.

The risks I've described will increase only if the reporting threshold for electronic funds transfers is dropped to zero, as has been discussed at this committee and elsewhere, and should Bill C-51, which further widens the potential sharing of information, be enacted without amendment.

Finally, let me say a few words about the review.

While our office is obligated to conduct compliance reviews of FINTRAC, we can only examine privacy issues. FINTRAC does not have a dedicated review body to examine their activities to ensure they are lawful, reasonable, and effective.

I conclude by reminding the committee that the lack of a dedicated review for FINTRAC was last raised by the O'Connor commission and that it remains a serious problem.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

Motion that debate be not further adjourned

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day in the House. This is the 92nd time the government has imposed time allocation or closure on important legislation. In comparison, the previous government in Canadian history did it less than a third as often as this government has. It has almost 100 times imposed time allocation and closure.

This comes after one day of debate on this important issue. As the leader of the official opposition said last week, there is no more serious question than to decide to send our women and men in uniform into a situation where they could well be giving their lives. Yet the government, after one day, is saying, “Enough debate, we just want to ram this thing through”.

There is a reason for this. It is quite simple. With Bill C-51, the more debate there has been, even at the committee level, the less Canadians have liked Bill C-51. We have seen a majority of Canadians now go to a majority of Canadians opposed to Bill C-51.

There is no doubt, on this particular motion, that as the debate has been furthered, Canadians have become clearer about what the government has tried to pull over the Canadian public, the whoppers that have been told, and the fact that our humanitarian aid is scant compared to the nearly $1 billion the government wants to put into bombs.

Is that not really why this is happening today? The government does not want the debate, because it is afraid of the facts this debate will expose.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, the second petition has over 1,800 signatures from Vancouver, Victoria, Burnaby, and within Saanich—Gulf Islands.

The petitioners call on the House to reject all aspects of the so-called anti-terror bill, Bill C-51, which violates the constitution of this country and which will be ineffective in prosecuting and preventing terrorism. The petitioners call upon the House to reject the bill in whole.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Public Safety earlier in question period completely mis-characterized the evidence of former Justice John Major who headed the Air India inquiry. Justice John Major made it abundantly clear to the public safety committee that he does not find the information sharing provisions in Bill C-51 adequate at all. If he said it once, he said it a dozen times. We need oversight at the back end. We need to have a national security adviser. Justice John Major said that it was human nature to withhold information between agencies. The bill needs fixing. Will the minister fix it?

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

Mr. Speaker, while we have increased the budget RCMP by one-third, we did not get the support of the opposition.

Keeping our streets and communities safe is our priority. While training and procurement are matters that fall under the direct review of the RCMP, our government supports Canada's law enforcement agencies with legislative tools such as Bill C-51, which the NDP are not willing to give to our RCMP officers, and resources.

Will the New Democrats stand up for the RCMP? Where is the NDP when talking of public safety and security?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are waiting for official reports on both those incidents in October.

It is not just Bill C-51 where the Conservatives are falling short on protecting public safety. Global News investigators have raised questions about whether RCMP officers lacked the tools and training needed to respond to the attack on RCMP members in New Brunswick, which cost three lives.

The RCMP has been forced to reallocate resources and to move 600 officers from organized and financial crimes to respond to national security threats, a situation the RCMP commissioner called unsustainable.

Now the Conservatives are asking the RCMP to do even more, while they cut its budget for a third year in a row. Does the minister think the situation is acceptable?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives may want to appear like they have been listening when it comes to Bill C-51, but the three weak amendments they have had to bring forward to their own bill do not even come close to dealing with its fundamental flaws.

Bill C-51 is still dangerously vague and overreaching, and it still ignores proven measures that work to combat terrorism.

When Canadians hear that security services are monitoring protesting veterans and disability advocates, they are right to wonder whether it makes any sense to give these agencies wider powers with no new oversight.

Why does the minister continue to insist that more oversight is not needed when it clearly is?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Government Operations Centre plays a vital, critical role for our country because it monitors events that could have catastrophic consequences, such as floods, earthquakes and fires. It was created in 2004 and is responsible for coordinating all government operations. Clearly, Bill C-51 does not cover those activities

Still, I would like to invite my colleague to avoid looking for excuses for not putting effective mechanisms in place to protect Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, 45 of the 48 witnesses who appeared before the committee proposed amending the bill or scrapping it altogether and going back to the drawing board. I truly hope that the Conservatives have decided to do the right thing and support the NDP's amendments.

Intelligence agencies are producing more and more investigation reports. The Government Operations Centre received reports on more than 160 lawful events and demonstrations between May 2014 and February 2015. Virtually none of those activities presented a potential risk to national security. Bill C-51 will not help matters.

Why is the minister wasting taxpayers' money to monitor the activities of groups that pose no risk to national security?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' Bill C-51 reveals their obsession with spying, particularly on activists who do not subscribe to their ideology.

Veterans' groups, first nations associations and doctors campaigning for care for refugees have been spied on by this government on the pretext that they are threats to national security. Bill C-51 will make that even easier for the Conservatives.

Why would the minister want to spy on Canadians involved in legal activities?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stand in the House today, confident that our government is keeping Canadians safe. Terrorism remains a very real threat to Canadians and Canadian values. As a member of the public safety committee currently reviewing the government's anti-terrorism legislation, I know first-hand the commitment that our government is making to protect Canadians from violent jihad extremism.

Bill C-51 is an important piece of legislation that would provide the proper tools to law enforcement to apprehend and prosecute terrorists. As a retired police officer, I know how important it is that our law enforcement officers have the ability to go after these terrorists. When it comes to terrorism, it is most important that those who are tasked to protect Canadians have the enforcement tools and ability to do so.

Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the parliamentary secretary for public safety. She is doing outstanding work, particularly in areas like this and on other bills, such as Bill C-51.

The child advocacy centres across the country serve an important purpose. They have teams of professionals who support children. They also provide opportunities for victims to bring forward their stories when they are under the most traumatic of circumstances. The Sheldon Kennedy Child Advocacy Centre in Calgary, for example, which is supported by this government, is one of those centres and makes sure that the young victims of these horrendous crimes are well supported.

In addition to that, our government has been very focused on a number of initiatives to make sure that children in particular are safe. I encourage all members in the House to look at getcybersafe.gc.ca and to tell others about it. It is a substantive initiative to make sure that young Canadians are protected in their own communities.

Public Safety

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, that is similar to the rhetoric we heard in committee this past week.

Let me talk about one of the witnesses who did appear before committee. Inspector Irwin has more than 30 years of experience in law enforcement and intelligence gathering. What did this credible witness say about Bill C-51? He said that existing laws “are too restrictive” and that there was an absolute need for the new measures contained within this bill. What else did he say about the need for information sharing? He said that it was absolutely crucial. In general, with respect to the bill, contrary to what the opposition parties like to put out, he said that it provided the necessary safeguards.

In the same meeting, we heard opposition witnesses say that the bill had absolutely nothing to do with—