This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in August 2015.
Steven Blaney Conservative
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Bar Association is not the only one worried about the impact that Bill C-51 will have on our rights and freedoms.
In a letter to the Conservative ministers, the Government of Quebec denounced the fact that Bill C-51 gives CSIS “such vast powers, including the possibility to take certain actions that violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”.
What does the Conservative government plan to do to address these entirely legitimate concerns?
Nycole Turmel NDP Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec has joined the growing chorus against Bill C-51, criticizing the federal government's unilateral approach and the impact Bill C-51 will have on Quebeckers' fundamental rights. The federal government has a responsibility to consult the provinces on such fundamental issues.
Will the Conservatives agree to our request to hear from three Quebec ministers in committee, namely the ministers of justice, public security and Canadian intergovernmental affairs?
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have used every divisive fearmongering tactic available to try to convince Canadians their overreaching Bill C-51 is necessary, but Canadians know better. They know this just is not true. Canadians have even taken to the streets across Canada, saying loudly and clearly that Bill C-51 is an attack on our freedoms and it will not keep us any safer.
Why is the minister refusing to listen to the concerns of Canadians?
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Mr. Speaker, in preparing for this brief speech I was not exactly sure how I wanted to begin. However, after reading my background notes I am left to wonder why this piece of legislation has even been introduced. It is becoming evident to me that the current Conservative government really is not interested in making Canada a better place in which to live. In fact, sometimes I think it is the opposite.
We have seen a number of pieces of legislation introduced with sensational titles such as this one, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act, that play to the emotions but often lack substance. We have seen this with various so-called tough-on-crime bills introduced in the past years in spite of the fact that our crime rate is falling. In the U.S., which has an alarmingly high rate of incarceration, there are discussions to reject this punitive and primitive approach that is not working and determine which other measures are needed to ensure that those found guilty can return safely and become productive members of society. In other words, that is the approach we have always had in this country, at least until very recently.
A lot of what is presented by the government I would say is meant to increase fear amongst Canadians with respect to problems that may not even really exist. Let us look at Bill C-51, which gives sweeping powers to the government to infringe upon our rights and freedoms. Thousands of Canadians took to the streets last Saturday to protest against the draconian measures of this bill. The sad truth is that we already have adequate measures to protect us from terrorist threats under existing legislation.
I believe and will venture to say that a lot of these bills are just a simple waste of time. Rather than concentrating on crime and fear, perhaps we could realistically tackle issues that are facing us, such as climate change, poverty, the lack of affordable housing, the erosion of our health care system, and the thousands of working poor we have in this country.
Experts who appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights explained that criminalization will not solve the problem and instead will exacerbate it. In fact, several Criminal Code provisions already provide legal recourse with regard to the offences targeted by the bill. Instead of politicizing the issue of gender-based violence, the government could strengthen the legislative measures already in place. It must also commit to implementing a national action plan to combat violence against women and invest more in the organizations that provide services to women in forced or underage marriages.
Naturally, we agree that no woman should be subject to gender-based violence, including the practices of forced marriage and underage marriage. The bill could have serious unintended consequences, including the criminalization of the victims of polygamy, criminalization and deportation of children, and separation of families.
As an aside, I sometimes get the impression that a lot of the bills that are presented here are not really thought out. A bill is presented and then we get an opinion back from the legal profession saying that it may not stand up to court challenges or that it is not well written and thought out. I think this bill falls into that category.
Instead of a sensationalized bill that does not get at the root of the problem, the minister should commit to widespread and meaningful consultations with community groups and experts so that the real issue of gender-based violence is addressed in an effective manner.
The government should also increase investments in organizations that provide services such as safe and affordable housing, counselling and help for families that are often traumatized by the fact that they must navigate complicated legal and immigration systems.
The thing is that what is happening with this bill, what I have learned in going through some background information, is that the information here often duplicates our existing laws. For example, the bill would change the Civil Marriage Act to make free and enlightened consent legal requirements for marriage, but these requirements are already part of the civil code of Quebec and common law in other provinces. The bill would limit the defence of provocation, ostensibly to exclude honour killings, but courts have already ruled that the concept of honour and the culturally driven sense of what is an appropriate response do not count as provocation under the Criminal Code.
Canadian criminal law already provides recourse relevant in most cases involving forced marriage, prior to and after the marriage, as well as in cases of travelling with a minor with the intent to force her or him to marry.
I am just going to list what it includes because it is important for my colleagues here to understand that we have adequate measures in our current legislation for a lot of this information that we are discussing and we are voting on.
For example, it includes uttering threats, section 264.1 of the Criminal Code. It includes assault, sexual assault, kidnapping, forcible confinement, abduction of a young person, procuring feigned marriage, removal of a child from Canada, extortion, sexual offences against children and youth, failure to provide necessities of life and abandoning children, abduction of a young person and, moreover, spousal abuse, abuse of a child and abuse of a position of trust and so on.
We have to ask ourselves this. If in fact we have provisions in our current legislation to address these issues, why are we taking time to do another bill? I would like to submit that perhaps we are doing this because the Conservatives want to sensationalize certain aspects of our society and play to the base, to the fear factor that I talked about before.
Witnesses at the Senate committee hearings pointed out that immigrant women often have significantly less information about the Canadian immigration and legal systems than their sponsoring partners, which allows their sponsors to threaten and manipulate them. However, this bill would make no provision for providing women with basic information about immigration rules or with adequate integration services.
Families who have suffered from violence and harmful practices need adequate supports and programs, especially since the challenges faced by survivors of forced marriages are unique. However, this bill makes no reference to support services. That is an interesting point. We have seen, for example, the sensationalism about Bill C-51, this anti-terrorism bill, and all the provisions that are going into the bill. However, there is really very little about resources to people in the field, to our police and to others who keep our society safe or, in this case, resources that are provided for the safety of women.
It is no secret that under the current government, women's centres have lost funding, that the organizations that support and work with women who are undergoing violence and spousal abuse do not have the resources that they had a decade ago. At the same time, we see a bill that supposedly would address the situation, but there is nothing on the ground to help those people when they approach a centre, if in fact the centre is still allowed to exist.
According to UNICEF, if Canada wants to ensure the protection of children from human trafficking, it must recognize that Canadian children who become victims of trafficking largely end up that way as a result of a series of failures in the protective system.
Many children live in low-income families without adequate access to community support services that could prevent the risk of exploitation. Many need educational support and mental health services, but do not receive them.
In 2008, Denmark's parliament unanimously passed a law making it a criminal offence to force anyone to marry. However, six years after the law was enacted, the police have not yet charged a single person and the courts have not convicted anyone under the act. Why? Susanne Fabricius of the national organisation of women's shelters in Denmark said that she did not think this had any impact on protecting women and, in fact, might have backfired and driven the problem underground. I rest my case with that.
Romeo Saganash NDP Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
Mr. Speaker, recognizing human rights is not a zero-sum game. The parliamentarian should know that.
This is the same shameful rhetoric the Conservatives use when it comes to Bill C-51. It was denounced yesterday by the National Chief Perry Bellegarde. He said:
First Nations know better than anyone how easy it is for governments to ignore, erode and eradicate our most basic human rights and freedoms until you barely recognize the land you’re living in.
Why will the government not listen for once?
Roxanne James ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, I was actually very pleased to see that the Chief of the Assembly of First Nations appeared at committee yesterday. He had some concerns, and I was very pleased to be able to respond to those concerns and explain how the bill would work with regard to information sharing.
Most people across Canada believe that if one branch of government comes across information pertinent to the national security of this country and the safety and security of our citizens that that branch of government should be able to relay that information to our national security agencies. That is precisely what Bill C-51 would do, and I was pleased to be able to answer those concerns.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, speaking of common sense, we have had 12 witnesses appear before the public safety committee this week, witnesses from a wide variety of backgrounds and perspectives, and every single one of them has highlighted serious problems with Bill C-51. The bill is so bad that Canadians in over 50 towns and cities across the country will be rallying against it this Saturday. Just like the experts at committee, they are saying that the bill is excessive, unnecessary, and dangerous to our freedoms.
Why will the Minister of Public Safety or the Minister of Justice or anyone over there not start listening to Canadians and pull back on the bill?
Roxanne James ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing of greater priority to this government than the safety and security of Canadians. The national security agencies, the RCMP and CSIS, have identified gaps in our current legislation. Bill C-51 brings those common sense measures.
We actually heard as well yesterday from witnesses that we are in a new era of terrorism and that the threat is evolving, and we need to modernize the tools we have for our law enforcement and national security agencies. That is precisely what Bill C-51 is doing, and I wish, for once, that the NDP would actually support a common sense measure to tackle terrorism.
Roxanne James ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-51 actually has five components to it. The first one is information sharing.
We have changes to the passenger protect program, which would allow the airlines to stop people from boarding planes and travelling overseas.
Of course, there are areas with regard to lowering the threshold for tools that law enforcement agencies have been calling upon. In fact, we heard in committee that Commissioner Paulson of the RCMP felt that these tools that we would provide for national security agencies would be extremely helpful and would actually fill the gaps that have been identified by those very same agencies.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-51 will have a significant impact on Canadians' rights and freedoms. The evidence heard yesterday in committee was very clear.
According to well-known experts, such as lawyer Paul Champ and Professor Craig Forcese, Bill C-51 could open the door to secret detention. It is not surprising that Canadians are mobilizing and protests against Bill C-51 are expected to be held across Canada this Saturday.
How much longer will the government ignore Canadians' concerns?
Roxanne James ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, the international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada and its allies, countries like Canada that believe in openness and tolerance. We see this again and again in the news. We have seen recent attacks here in Canada, Paris, in Copenhagen and Australia.
Let me talk about the reasons why we brought forward Bill C-51. Our national security agencies have identified serious gaps in the existing legislation that they need to better protect Canadians. That is what this government is doing. We brought forward common-sense measures and I certainly hope that the NDP will eventually get on our side.
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, last night's committee testimony underlined that the sweeping changes Conservatives have put forward in Bill C-51 are excessive, unnecessary, and dangerous to our freedoms, but what really stood out last night was the disrespect shown to a witness. The member for Calgary—Nose Hill suggested that the National Council of Canadian Muslims had ties to Islamic terrorist groups and that they were, in her words, “half-hearted in the fight against terrorism”.
Will the member apologize for her disgraceful behaviour?
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much.
The time is now up, Mr. Easter.
On behalf of the entire committee, I thank Mr. Gardee, Mr. Tepper, and Mr. Neve. Thank you so kindly for appearing before us here today.
Certainly we will continue the examination of Bill C-51 at the next meeting of the committee.
This meeting is adjourned
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I certainly welcome all the witnesses, and I thank all of you for your presentations.
To start with you, Mr. Tepper, you said in your remarks relating to the kind of discussion that's going on out there over Bill C-51 that it's sparking the kind of debate we need. Mr. Neve mentioned that as well in regard to all the meetings he's been at.
We're in a different Parliament than we've ever been in Canadian history, in my view, because if you look at the record, you will see that this government has very seldom allowed amendments to bills. I think that's a sad commentary.
For that good debate that's happening and I think the good presentations we're having here to be effective, however, the government would have to show a willingness to accept amendments, which they have not to date. What kind of comment is that on our democracy if no amendments to this bill are allowed at the end of the day?
This bill, of course, and the agencies it covers are by no means the only security-related agencies that Canada has to monitor Internet chatter. If the bill were enacted as is and became law and led to a drying up of chatter, perhaps it might be achieving some of its goals. I have no concern whatsoever that Internet chatter will ever dry up. It will just permutate and go someplace else.
I would like to add that Canada has in the public sphere and in my kind of sphere, the academic side, and the private sector as well very advanced techniques for monitoring and making good use of Internet monitoring quite apart from Bill C-51 that can be tapped by any agency in Canada or for that matter any committee of Parliament.