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.

Food and Drugs Act

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

Madam Speaker, I said earlier, in thanking the member of Parliament for Red Deer—Lacombe, that we support this legislation. We support Bill C-368 for a number of reasons.

I want to start by saying that, as are over 70% of Canadians, I am a consumer of natural health products. I use those products, as 70% of the population does. This includes vitamins and minerals, herbal remedies, homeopathic medicines and probiotics. Many Canadians use traditional medicines, such as traditional Chinese medicines or indigenous medicines, as well. There are a wide variety of products on the market.

As has already been stated, the reality is that we have a very robust natural health product sector that is carefully regulated in a way that ensures that the products are of good quality. That is why, when we look at the natural health product sector, we see so many Canadians consuming them and, at the same time, we see no side effects or downsides to the consumption of those products.

It is because the products are effective. If they are not, we stop using them. I have tried a number of products over the years. Some work really well; others, not so much. As consumers, we have that ability to distinguish and make sure we are choosing products that are appropriate for us.

This is not the pharmaceutical sector. These are not prescriptions that are given out. I have a family doctor who is very good at sometimes suggesting products that are not part of a prescription, but simply a suggestion. He has turned out to be right every single time about the kind of products we can take.

As an example, there is magnesium, which is a vitamin product. My friend from Red Deer—Lacombe mentioned it earlier as well. Some of us are on flights back and forth across the country, travelling 5,000 kilometres twice a week, every month. My colleague from North Island—Powell River is in the same situation. We are going around this planet every month in terms of the amount of time we spend on airplanes, getting back to our constituency to ensure that we are serving our constituents and then coming to Ottawa to do the important work we do here.

The reality is that, when we are doing this, we are in a cramped space. We need to ensure we take magnesium if we want to avoid leg cramps. My doctor was the one who suggested it, and ever since then, I have made sure that I take the appropriate product. It makes sense. I know you agree, Madam Speaker, even though you do not have as far to go when you go back to your constituents.

There is a wide range of products that are available and that make a difference. For consumers who find that their products just are not up to speed, they can change, try another product or simply decide they are not going to use something anymore.

What is already a flourishing and effective sector was diminished by the government incorporating into Bill C-47, an omnibus legislation, these clauses that simply put natural health products in a completely different situation. They are heavily regulated with costs, which a number of speakers have already indicated were absolutely inappropriate. Ever since I have been here, and certainly for years before that, the NDP caucus has decried omnibus legislation.

We saw this under the former Harper Conservative government. We see this under the current Liberal government. There are massive budget implementation acts that are 700 or 800 pages. Incorporated within them are really what I call poison pills. Certain clauses are put in there that ultimately serve as changes in legislation. However, then we can see they have regulations that are not part of Parliament's purview or the government's purview, and they can actually have detrimental impacts.

This was the case with Bill C-47. This was tried before with Bill C-51 under the Harper Conservative government.

The government tried to, very heavily and inappropriately, apply additional regulations to natural health products. That was pushed back on, but with Bill C-47, as omnibus legislation that led to the regulatory changes, we are in the situation that we find ourselves in now, and that has to change. That is why we are supportive of Bill C-368.

What it would do is provide for the kinds of hearings at the committee stage that would allow us to really determine the full extent of how the existing sector is regulated effectively and how detrimental these changes are, both those suggested in Bill C-51 a few years ago and those currently in Bill C-47, to the industry itself, which is a Canadian success story, as well as the impact on consumers who are using these vitamins, probiotics and homeopathic medicines effectively and potentially finding it more difficult to access these natural health products because of the actions of Health Canada and the actions of the government.

As such, it makes good sense to take Bill C-368, to put it in place, to have those hearings, and then to determine what is appropriate. It is very clear that those regulatory changes were absolutely excessive and have had a profound negative impact.

What we are saying is that the government, through Bill C‑47, is taking action with Health Canada without holding consultations and without conducting an impact study or a management fee study. As my colleague mentioned, this means that small businesses that market natural health products are now subject to a regulatory framework that is far better suited to the pharmaceutical industry.

The pharmaceutical industry is the most profitable industry in North America. It makes huge profits, which is why the NDP is pushing for pharmacare. In countries with pharmacare, pharmaceutical companies have been forced to lower their prices. The case of New Zealand, where the price of some pharmaceuticals has dropped by 90%, is often cited.

These pharmaceutical companies are extremely powerful. It makes no sense to establish a regulatory framework that puts small businesses, which are safely selling a whole line of products to smaller markets, on the same footing as big transnational pharmaceutical companies that are raking in huge profits. That is why the government's approach was inappropriate. It was inappropriate to include this small provision in omnibus legislation that is several hundred pages long. The consequences of this regulatory change are unclear, which has led to the outcome before us today.

It is clear to the NDP that this bill is important, because it was unacceptable for that provision to be included in an omnibus bill. It was unacceptable for the former Harper government to do that, and it is unacceptable for today's Liberal government to do the same.

Thanks to the bill introduced by my colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe, we have the opportunity to correct the mistake that was made and to really look at this provision's impact on the natural health product industry. We have the opportunity to determine the financial impact and the impact on consumers. We have the opportunity to see the full impact of the decision that was made last year to include this provision in an omnibus bill. The NDP has been very clear in this regard: We support the bill and we look forward to the important discussions that will take place in committee.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would say the member is exactly right. If there are any problems, and I actually do not think there are any, the negotiations that came out of Bill C-51, the consultation with the industry back at that time in 2014, left our industry in a very good sweet spot, where we have just the right amount of regulation and enough freedom and opportunity so that our industry is actually growing.

I simply cannot understand why the current Liberal government wants to kill another industry in this country.

[Evan Light]

It's not negotiable. It's not debatable.

I think the preamble you read is really fascinating because to me it speaks to—if you remember—Bill C-51, which was a Harper government law that created a brand new level of data sharing between government agencies.

The preamble sort of lays out how that happens. It shows you how this information flows between agencies and how it has become quite a normal thing to do. That dates back a very long time. It's not a new thing. It has probably been going on since before the Harper years, but I think it's something that maybe was informal and now has become quite formalized.

It does scare me. As somebody who used ArriveCAN when it came out because I found it easier—I wasn't provided with paper on a plane to fill out—I think that our technologies at airports and borders are quite invasive. They're also quite invasive everywhere in the world. I've been to airports in Europe where I couldn't get a connection without having my face and my hands scanned.

I think our levels of invasion are not necessarily at that high level here, but yes, I think it's problematic.

[Michael Wernick]

The context is always different. I was deputy clerk and helped the Harper government pass Bill C-51 late in its mandate. A little bit later, I helped the Trudeau government amend it through Bill C-59.

At the time, in 2015-16, there was still a great deal of focus on anti-terrorism. This is the time when Daesh had overrun most of northern Iraq. There were all kinds of issues in the Middle East at the time.

As Mr. Jean and others can explain to you, there are a range of threats that the Government of Canada worries about, from terrorism to domestic terrorism to cybersecurity to foreign interference and so on. That's why we have a national security adviser. That's why we have a cabinet committee on security and intelligence, and that's why the government wanted NSICOP created.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you for that.

Yes, it was mentioned within that same lawsuit, in the documents that the BC Civil Liberties Association came out with, the glossary of terms of unselected data and publicly available data and how they are used. Do laws like Bill C-59...? That lawsuit was before Bill C-59. It addressed more the old Bill C-51 problems. Specifically as we look at Bill C-26, do those laws adequately address the threats that civil libertarians are worried about in terms of taking advantage of publicly available data?

Telecommunications Act

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to think about in what the member for Kildonan—St. Paul had to say, and I agree with many things she said, including her concern about the oversharing of Canadians' personal information between government departments. I know that was a significant issue in the 41st Parliament with Bill C-51, when the government of the day introduced security legislation at that time.

I wonder if the Conservative Party today is in a mood to actually protect Canadians against the oversharing of information between government departments and if we might try to find an opportunity in the course of this bill's passage through the House to correct, as we go, some of the defects in that legislation from many years ago.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also want to thank Mr. Therrien for all the work he's done. I remember the Harper government's Bill C-51 in 2015. I so appreciated your criticism and commitment to upholding Canadians' privacy rights. That has been ongoing. Thank you for your service.

In your departmental plan, you indicated that your office is reviewing potential structural and operational changes. Can you describe what changes you're considering and what impact they might have?

[Wendy Jocko, Chief, Algonquins of Pikwakanagan First Nation]

Meegwetch, Chair.

[Witness spoke in Algonquin and provided the following text:]

Anishinabe aking ate awso kikina-wadji-chigun.

[Witness provided the following translation:]

This land we are upon, the spot where you sit now, is the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

[English]

The Anishinabe Algonquin people are one heart and one soul, and have lived for thousands of years on this unsurrendered territory. We thank and honour the land.

We acknowledge the enduring presence of all first nations, Inuit and Métis people who call the Algonquin territory their home, along with other nations. We acknowledge all of the residential school survivors and children who never made it home. We acknowledge the survivors and all they have endured.

We honour the important contributions of all veterans in the service of Canada. We remember those who lost their lives and those whose lives were forever changed.

I would like to begin by thanking the committee for inviting me to discuss expanding the parliamentary precinct to include sections of Wellington Street and Sparks Street.

On October 22, 2014, a man evaded security and entered the Hall of Honour with a rifle and a knife after fatally shooting Corporal Nathan Cirillo of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada. He threatened the very lives of parliamentarians and personnel at the Hill. Before he was stopped, he injured a constable. That day, it was as if the very democratic principles of our country were under attack. Our country was unified then in its condemnation of this heinous act, vowing “never again”.

On November 2014, the joint advisory working group on security identified a lack of communication among security groups on Parliament Hill as a significant problem and recommended combining the existing security forces under the Senate, the House of Commons and the RCMP detachment in charge of the grounds into one integrated security service. Parliament subsequently passed Bill C-51, the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, which, among other things, amalgamated the Senate Protective Service, House of Commons Security Services and Parliament's RCMP detachment into the Parliamentary Protective Service.

In late January to mid-February 2022, demonstrators occupied the downtown core of Ottawa, including much of the parliamentary precinct. The Ottawa Police Service acted as the lead agency, with a number of other agencies from across Canada providing support. The Parliamentary Protective Service was responsible for security on Parliament Hill and at the Senate of Canada building.

The polite—some would say even mild-mannered—police response to the blockade of downtown Ottawa by thousands of protesters revealed to indigenous people a double standard in how law enforcement agencies treat civil disobedience. Had indigenous activists made the same threats, broken the same laws and engaged in the same level of disruption, history has shown they would probably have been met with a very heavy-handed crackdown.

To some, it leaves little doubt that there was racism involved. Many have asked why people were allowed to threaten the life of the Prime Minister, especially after the promises made after the death of Corporal Nathan Cirillo. While there were some in the group who claimed to be indigenous, they did not respect the protocols of the Algonquin nation in respecting ceremony. They were asked by the rights holders and the chiefs of Pikwakanagan, Kitigan Zibi and the Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation Tribal Council to respect our territory and customs, to no avail.

We wondered about that, because if it had been an indigenous person, they would most certainly be sitting in jail.

Social media users shared images of flags bearing icons of fascism, white supremacy and hate, including Nazi swastikas and Confederate flags that garnered shock, horror and outrage. My own father and mother, both military veterans of the Second World War, would have been saddened by the presence of these deplorable symbols of hate.

Video also circulated showing demonstrators appropriating first nation drumming as they danced, drank beer and chanted “yabba dabba doo” and nonsense while shouting obscenities to the Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau. The drum is a sacred ceremonial item whose handling is governed by specific cultural protocols. These episodes happened only steps away from the Centennial Flame, where throughout the summer stood a memorial to residential school victims. It was an absolute insult.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I want to begin by acknowledging that today is March 21, which marks the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. It was some 60 years ago, in 1960, in fact, when the Sharpeville police massacre happened in South Africa against workers.

I want to take a step back from the specificity around the tools and talk about the systems for a moment, and draw a direct line between what I believe occurred under C-51 and the implementation of anti-terrorism protocols provincially that led to the analog version of facial recognition, which was the practice of street checks and racial profiling, otherwise known as “carding” by local police services. I'll pick up from there, because I believe that practice of racial profiling, the analog version, has been in a very sophisticated way ruled out and then reimplemented as has been identified here through private sector contracts that allow companies like Clearview to do indirectly what police services were doing directly.

I want to also situate the conversation in the system, which is this notion of predictive policing as the basis of my questions, because I believe that the topic of facial recognition may be overly broad to get any kind of real coverage on this.

My questions will be to Ms. Khoo, who had laid out in an extensive report some of the bases for recommendations moving forward. I would like Ms. Khoo to comment on the evolution of predictive policing, its inherent racial bias and this notion of creating de facto panoptic prisons within our communities that are often over-surveilled, over-policed and underserviced.

Ms. Khoo, would you care to comment on that, and perhaps draw any lines that you may have come across between the practices of street checks and carding to populate data in things like CPIC, which would obviously be replaced by more sophisticated data such as AI and facial recognition?

Emergencies Act

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed to see the stand that the leader of the NDP and the party have taken on an issue that deals with the fundamental civil liberties of Canadians. What has happened to the party of Tommy Douglas? What has happened to the party of Jack Layton that fought against Bill C-51 and the War Measures Act? What has changed?

The NDP is trying to split hairs. Why has it abandoned one of its fundamental principles?

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, while I can appreciate where the hon. parliamentary secretary is trying to go on this, it is not lost on me that this is a government that allowed our military to spy on Black Lives Matter movement protests while simultaneously being out and actually participating in them.

There is a long and storied history of the way in which government actively surveils citizens in the country, including the ways in which Bill C-51 allowed for the targeting and criminalization of indigenous land defenders, environmentalists, social justice folks and basic people out there trying to advocate for their own civil rights.

Public Safety

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the member who asked the question was a part of Stephen Harper's Conservative government, which regularly refused to allow any oversight whatsoever on issues of national security. Many Canadians will remember the excesses of Bill C-51 that the Harper government put forward, which is why we made changes to Bill C-51 when we got into office, which is also why we created the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, to provide a forum for parliamentarians to oversee national security work. That is an improvement we made that Conservatives voted against.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, there are many questions that need to be pursued, and that is exactly why we created the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians.

The fact that the Conservative leader just referred to it as “the Prime Minister's secret committee” goes to part of the problem of why the Conservative government, under Stephen Harper, for 10 years refused to bring in any oversight by parliamentarians of our national security apparatuses. We all remember the real concerns about Stephen Harper and Bill C-51 and labelling terrorists in Canada.

We brought forward a committee of parliamentarians who have the security clearances necessary to do this work.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I had another question, but I'm going to go back to Professor Attaran with regard to capacity.

Here's the reality. The vaccine promise is starting to roll in there with child care, pharmacare, electoral reform, Bill C-51, climate change, fossil fuel subsidies, a whole series of things that have been promised and never acted upon. However, this one is really dangerous in particular. The other ones are equally difficult to deal with as well, but this one's really bad.

I want to know. If we are able to ramp up and catch up with what's going on, do we have the infrastructure for the administration of the vaccine? Do we have the physical capacity being put in place right now by the task force to make sure that, if we are going to play catch-up, we can do so with the proper administration of the vaccine to our population?

Opposition Motion—Official Apology from the Prime Minister

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was here during the debate on Bill C-51. In fact, I was sitting not too far from where the member would have been sitting back in Centre Block.

There were many aspects of Bill C-51 that deserved our support as the third party at the time, for example, the establishment of a security committee. If we look at the Five Eyes countries of the world, Canada was the only one that did not have a parliamentary committee to deal with security related issues. We have one today as a result of this government. That was one of the things we talked about during the debate of Bill C-51.