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.

[Marvin Kurz, National Legal Counsel, B'nai Brith Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

B’nai Brith is Canada’s largest membership-based Jewish organization. Through its League for Human Rights and Institute for International Affairs, it is the premier advocate of human rights for Canada's Jewish community.

In its submission today, B’nai Brith Canada will focus on one aspect of Bill C-51, that related to the creation of an offensive promotion of terrorism, seizure of terrorist propaganda, and deletion of terrorist propaganda from computer systems.

Our position is in favour of those aspects of Bill C-51, subject to some recommendations for amendments that will help ensure that the provisions are not seen to suffer from problems of vagueness and overbreadth, which may negatively protect the constitutionality of the bill.

My colleague, Mr. Matas, will speak at greater length regarding our recommendations for the actual amendments.

For now I'd like to briefly offer an overview explanation of how we came to the point of supporting the terror propaganda provisions that we are speaking of. In doing so, I point to the context of the Jewish community's vulnerability to hate propaganda throughout the world and particularly here in Canada, the tie between hate and terror, and the context of our anti-hate propaganda legislation.

In our paper we refer to what you all know, that is the recent spate of terror activities in Canada, those actually caught by our investigative authorities before they could be carried out, those that have actually been carried out, and those that are yet to come, including the future behaviour of Canadian children brainwashed to join jihadist groups abroad.

For our community, one part of the hidden context of so much terrorist activity is the fact that the most powerful terrorist groups are now the foremost hate groups as well, with ISIS, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, and Hamas supplanting the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nations, and the Heritage Front as leaders of the hate movement. These are organizations whose raison d'être focuses in large measure on zealous anti-Semitism.

We know of the terror activities aimed at Jews in France, the Hyper Cacher supermarket slaughter tied to the Charlie Hebdo attacks; the 2012 murders at a Jewish school in Marseilles; the recent murder in Copenhagen of a young Jewish guard at a synagogue, who was protecting 100 people there for a bat mitzvah; the attacks on a Jewish-owned shopping mall in Kenya in 2013; and the attack on a Mumbai religious centre as part of a larger terrorist attack in 2008.

In each of these activities I'm talking about, in each of these crimes, Jews were singled out for attack purely for reasons of hate. There was no other strategic reason to attack these innocents.

In Canada, the Jewish-owned West Edmonton Mall, along with Jewish-owned malls worldwide, was at the centre of a terror threat by al Shabaab. What hasn't been made really clear is that the reason the West Edmonton Mall, as opposed to say the Yorkdale Shopping Centre, was centred out was that it is Jewish owned. The Ghermezians own the mall as well as some of the other malls that were mentioned. The only malls that have been threatened are Jewish-owned malls.

These terror threats come in the context of a worldwide increase in anti-Semitism. Our B’nai Brith audit of anti-Semitic incidents shows that in 2013 vandalism against Jewish targets was up 21.6% and violence, 7.7%. We're awaiting the 2014 numbers, which we expect to be far higher as they have been in Europe, for example, where there has been a 100%, a doubling, of anti-Semitic incidents in France; 60% in Belgium; 50% in Britain; and 33% in Australia. These figures are all in our paper.

Canadian law in the form of a series of Supreme Court of Canada decisions has frequently confirmed the propriety of legal limitations on hate speech, recognizing the tie between hate speech and hate crimes. We say that the tie between speech and action or crime is even greater in the case of the promotion of terror, which is why we support the provisions of Bill C-51 that we are supporting, subject to the caveats that my colleague, Mr. Matas, will now speak of.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Good evening, colleagues and ladies and gentlemen. We welcome our witnesses here this evening to meeting number 61 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

We're continuing our study on Bill C-51. We have two panels of witnesses tonight.

On our first panel tonight we welcome, from B'nai Brith Canada, David Matas, senior legal counsel, and Marvin Kurz, national legal counsel. We also welcome, from the Canadian Police Association, Tom Stamatakis, president. By way of video conference from Vancouver, British Columbia, we welcome Jessie Housty, as an individual.

Welcome, all.

Yes, Mr. Easter.

Military Contribution Against ISIL

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, it is not clear what the Liberal position is on this matter.

Resolution 2178, which I cited, talks about the complementary measures of respect for law, for human rights, for freedoms, et cetera, and effective counterterrorism measures, yet we have the Liberal Party standing up in support of Bill C-51 before that bill is even tabled and remaining on their feet in support of that bill while knowing that it robs Canadians of rights and freedoms and fundamental human rights.

The Liberal position on the broader issue of counterterrorism, on the broader issue of the public safety of Canadians, and on this issue of the expanded mission in Syria is perfectly unclear to me and, I think, to the majority of Canadians.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I have good news for Canadians. First, it is important to know that there are just a little more than 200 days left in the life of this government. On October 19, Canadians will have the opportunity to put an end to this government. I know that the vast majority of Canadians are fed up with this government.

I have other big news. Even though this government is intolerant when it comes to debates in the House and even though it cut the list of witnesses at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, it is important to note that Canadians are following the debates of that committee. The majority of Canadians may have approved of Bill C-51 during the initial days of the review in committee, but now the majority of Canadians disagree with this government and this bill. That only goes to show the importance of the House debates, which Canadians are obviously following with great interest.

That being said, I wanted to ask my colleague, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, a question: what is on the government's agenda for the next week?

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things the minister forgot to mention she said was that the bill lacked sufficient oversight. He is selectively quoting from his own witness.

Despite the fact that leaders from faith communities have testified at public safety, they all agree that we urgently need a national deradicalization strategy and that Bill C-51 lacks critical oversight mechanisms that would prevent abuse.

How can the minister refuse to act in the face of overwhelming evidence that his bill is fatally flawed, when 45 out of 48 witnesses are telling us that this bill needs to be amended or abandoned?

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

Mr. Speaker, the ministers over there still do not get it. Bill C-51 is chockablock full of measures that threaten Canadians' rights and freedoms, but missing key elements that would actually help keep Canadians safer.

The committee heard today from community leaders, like Zarqa Nawaz, who are working on the ground to prevent radicalization. They desperately need more resources, not divisive rhetoric from the government.

Why is de-radicalization not a priority for the government when we know it works and it can actually prevent future attacks?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to oppose Bill C-51.

The Canadian Bar Association criticized the new, almost unlimited powers to disrupt that would be given to CSIS.

The association said:

It is untenable that the infringement of Charter rights is open to debate, in secret proceedings where only the government is represented.

Why is the Conservative government so determined to pass its flawed bill that waters down our fundamental values?

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope our NDP friends will listen to the Supreme Court, which finds that our Canadian model, in other words, the review committee, strikes the perfect balance between procedural rights and privacy.

Bill C-51 targets Islamist jihadists to prevent them from achieving their stated objective of carrying out terrorist threats against the west, including Canada.

In this context the measures proposed in Bill C-51 to deal with the nature of threats Canada faces are quite rightly and urgently needed to protect and keep secure the freedom of her citizens.

That was professor Salim Mansur from Western University, in Ontario—

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if we are talking about the same meetings of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, but as for witnesses supporting Bill C-51, give me a break.

Yesterday in committee, we heard others criticizing Bill C-51 for being too broad in scope and lacking oversight provisions for intelligence agencies. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association was clear: a significant part of Bill C-51 is unconstitutional and would infringe upon our basic rights.

Does the minister realize that this ill-conceived bill will violate Canadians' rights and freedoms?

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have heard from many groups and experts across the country, and they are getting more and more worried about the scope of Bill C-51. The Conservatives are wrong to reject serious criticism of their bill.

That is why the NDP will move a motion to broaden the debate. We want to talk about a counter-radicalization strategy and better oversight mechanisms for intelligence agencies.

Will this government support our motion?

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot sacrifice the fundamental freedoms that are central to Canadian society in the name of bolstering public safety. We can and must protect both. The government must listen to the experts who testified before the committee on public safety who warned against Bill C-51 and the overarching attack on fundamental freedoms. The experts agree with the NDP that the bill gives broad and new powers to CSIS, without enhancing oversight, including provisions that could impact legitimate dissent, and does not produce a plan to counter radicalization in Canadian communities.

My main concern is the vague definition of what constitutes a terrorist in the bill. Being born as a Tamil in Sri Lanka, I have experienced what a broad definition of terrorism can mean for an entire people. I have seen and heard from innocent people who have lost everything because of vague definitions of “terrorist”.

As a Canadian parliamentarian, I demand oversight and a clear definition of what is a terrorist and what is legitimate protest. I will stand with the NDP to defend our charter of rights for our fundamental freedoms and for what makes us a strong nation.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-51's provisions are broad and vague, with huge gaps in oversight and accountability. These broad new powers could target, for instance, peaceful anti-pipeline protesters on Burnaby Mountain, citizens in Burnaby and in New Westminster who protest the government agenda, environmentalists and first nations opposing pipeline expansion to the B.C. coast, or aboriginal communities engaged in peaceful civil disobedience to protect their traditional territories.

The government has refused to listen so far to the Canadian Bar Association, the BC Civil Liberties Association, the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, over 100 of Canada's top legal professors, and countless others who have unequivocally exposed Bill C-51's dangerous flaws. New Democrats will relentlessly stand up to this dangerous bill.

Canadians deserve better, and on October 19, they will get better with the new NDP government that respects democratic rights and freedoms in Canada.

Military Contribution Against ISIL

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have any particular views other than to say a well set up question is asked and answered. Both ministers I am sure are capable of dealing with the conflict that exists between their rationales.

However, it goes back to the fact that, again, the government is content with wholesale, feel-good arguments in the sense of, let us lash out and attack brutal terrorists. It feels good to all of us. Who does not want to do that? That is the bottom line kind of justification they are getting to. Then, when they are really going for the moral impulse, they talk about all of the brutality. It is correct to be talking about that, but they are not linking it to any specific legal justification either.

All I am asking for, truly, is straightforward clarity. That will also come with seeing the legal opinions, although the government is rather afraid of the legal profession in this country. It is afraid of law professors who give opinions on Bill C-51, for example. It is disdainful of the Canadian Bar Association. I rather doubt it would want to see its legal opinion subject to the scrutiny of other experts.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I believe it is important to refer to the facts in a debate. When our government wanted to introduce a counterterrorism strategy, the NDP opposed it. That is a fact. The votes are on the record.

Likewise, the opposition did not support us when we wanted to ensure that passports are revoked from people who travel abroad to take part in terrorist activities, let alone when it came to revoking the citizenship of those convicted of terrorist activities. Those are the facts.

As we speak, my Conservative colleagues are listening to evidence, such as that provided by Louise Vincent, the sister of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent. This morning, we heard from the representative of a Muslim association who supported Bill C-51.

That anti-terrorism bill contains a number of provisions to improve our radicalization prevention measures. The NDP does not want us to have effective tools to protect the public.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do support those measures that were put forward by the official opposition as an amendment, and I look also to UN Security Council resolution 2178, which specifically dealt with this issue and pointed out there are many things that countries around the world in that coalition can do to ensure that we provide humanitarian aid.

UN Security Council resolution 2178 also calls on nations to control radicalization within their own borders. In the context of the debate we are having on Bill C-51, I regret that when the government put forward anti-terrorism legislation, it ignored the measures that the U.K. has put in place. The U.K. is putting forward resolutions and programs for prisons and schools to abort efforts at radicalization in those institutions.