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. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.
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.
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Speaker, we share some of the concerns expressed by the leader of the official opposition. We also intend to put forward amendments to ensure parliamentary oversight and to add sunset clauses or a mandatory review, for example.
Does the Leader of the Opposition really believe that the government opposite will agree to any amendments proposed by the official opposition or our party?
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his solicitude and point a few things out to him.
A few months ago, when the government introduced an undemocratic bill that would have gutted some of the safeguards set out in the Canada Elections Act, members of the Liberal Party held a press conference where they said that there was nothing they could do because the Conservatives have a majority, but that when the Liberals took office, they would change the law. That is arrogance and incompetence. It is arrogance because the Liberals are assuming that people will vote for them even though they are not doing anything. It is incompetence because they are failing to fulfill their primary obligation as an opposition party.
However, I read with great interest a letter from the Liberal member last week, in which he openly criticized the idea of bringing the RCMP into the House of Commons and provided a detailed explanation as to why. What happened when it came time to vote? The Liberals forgot to vote. He supported the Conservatives through indolence. There is a limit.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, as usual the Leader of the Opposition has elevated the debate in the House, clearly laying out what is at stake with this legislation.
I want to ask him about something he talked about at the beginning of his speech and then reflected on at the end. We all came together in the House the day after the shooting on Parliament Hill with a commitment that we would not let those who would use violence harm our democracy or our open society. There was an expression by members on all sides of the House that we would co-operate and work together to ensure that was the case.
What does the Leader of the Opposition think happened to that feeling that was so strong on that one day and seems so absent now in the House?
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Mr. Speaker, we are a long way from the hug I received from my bro across.
The French have a good expression, “Chassez le naturel, il revient au galop”, which means if we chase away the natural tendencies they come galloping back, and that is what we have seen here.
When the bill was announced not in Parliament, not with respect to this institution, but as a purely partisan ploy hundreds of kilometres away from here, Canadians immediately understood that this was just another piece being moved on a board game played by the Conservatives. This is their trademark. They are telling Canadians that they have to be afraid, that we have to sacrifice our freedoms if we want to ensure our security.
We know that it is possible to do both. We are going to work hard in parliamentary committee to bring forward amendments that would accomplish that. We will bring in experts if the government does not try to railroad the bill through. We will bring in people who can talk to what could be done constructively in communities across Canada.
If our goal is to strengthen security, we will be there every step of the way. If the goal of the Conservatives is to play politics, we will stand up to them.
Rob Clarke Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Mr. Speaker, it was quite interesting to listen to my colleague across the floor.
I look back to July 7, 2006, when three of my colleagues in the RCMP were shot, two passed away seven days later. I listen to the rhetoric here. Members are laughing about it. It is not funny.
This is about protecting Canadians. This is about protecting the law enforcement officers on the streets who have to do the daily battles against everyone. This is about protecting our men and women in the services. This is about protecting all Canadians—
Rob Clarke Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
My NDP colleagues should let me finish, Mr. Speaker. Their position is hug-a-thug day. I do not agree with that.
This is about respecting my colleagues who have passed away. We hear about the abuses and about protecting the freedoms of Canadians. I look back at 2013 when my colleague drove on the Hill and the RCMP tried to pull him over. He asked the officer, “Do you know who I am?”. That is not respecting the institution.
NDP members voted to keep travelling for terrorist purposes legal. They voted to allow convicted terrorists to keep their citizenship. They voted to stop our security agencies from co-operating with our allies and now they are expressing concerns about the important--
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Mr. Speaker, no doubt unwittingly, the member has just done us all a service. If there was any lingering doubt in anyone's mind that this is simply a political ploy, he has removed all doubt. There is nothing in the bill about any of the things he has just mentioned.
It also shows that, like the minister, he has not even read it, which is also bringing us straight back to what is actually driving this, the Prime Minister's Office and the Conservatives' politics for the next election.
We are going to stand up on a question of principle. We know that it is possible and it is indeed primordial for any government to defend both our security and our rights.
I very much regret that someone who believes he once enforced the law does not understand the importance of protecting Canadians' rights.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Drummond, The Environment.
The hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River is rising on a point of order. I would like to remind the hon. member that this needs to be a point of order and he needs to get to the point of order immediately.
Rob Clarke Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Mr. Speaker, going back 18 years and having to enforce the Criminal Code, questions were asked of us about understanding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One thing that they are saying over there—
Anti-terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders
February 18th, 2015 / 4:40 p.m.
See
context
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
Order, please.
This is clearly not a point of order. If the member wishes to make a point of order he may do so, but this is not a point of debate.
