Bill C-59 (Historical)

National Security Act, 2017

An Act respecting national security matters

Part 1 enacts the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Act, which establishes the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency and sets out its composition, mandate and powers. It repeals the provisions of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act establishing the Security Intelligence Review Committee and amends that Act and other Acts in order to transfer certain powers, duties and functions to the new Agency. It also makes related and consequential amendments to other Acts.
Part 1.‍1 enacts the Avoiding Complicity in Mistreatment by Foreign Entities Act to authorize the issuance of directions respecting the disclosure of and request for information that would result in a substantial risk of mistreatment of an individual by a foreign entity and the use of information that is likely to have been obtained as the result of mistreatment of an individual by a foreign entity.
Part 2 enacts the Intelligence Commissioner Act, which provides that the duties and functions of the Intelligence Commissioner are to review the conclusions on the basis of which certain authorizations are issued or amended, and determinations are made, under the Communications Security Establishment Act and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and to approve those authorizations, amendments and determinations if those conclusions are reasonable. This Part also abolishes the position of the Commissioner of the Communications Security Establishment, provides for that Commissioner to become the Intelligence Commissioner, transfers the employees of the former Commissioner to the office of the new Commissioner and makes related and consequential amendments to other Acts.
Part 3 enacts the Communications Security Establishment Act, which establishes the Communications Security Establishment and, among other things, sets out the Establishment’s mandate as well as the regime for authorizing its activities. It also amends the National Defence Act and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Part 4 amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to
(a) add a preamble to that Act and provide a mechanism to enhance the accountability of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service;
(b) add new limits on the exercise of the Service’s power to reduce threats to the security of Canada including, in particular, by setting out a list of measures that may be authorized by the Federal Court;
(c) provide a justification, subject to certain limitations, for the commission of acts or omissions that would otherwise constitute offences;
(d) exempt employees of the Service and persons acting under their direction from liability for offences related to acts committed for the sole purpose of establishing or maintaining a covert identity;
(e) create a regime for the Service to collect, retain, query and exploit datasets in the course of performing its duties and functions;
(f) make amendments to the warrant regime that are related to datasets; and
(g) implement measures for the management of datasets.
Part 5 amends the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act to, among other things,
(a) emphasize that the Act addresses only the disclosure of information and not its collection or use;
(b) clarify the definition of “activity that undermines the security of Canada”;
(c) clarify that advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression are not activities that undermine the security of Canada unless they are carried on in conjunction with an activity that undermines the security of Canada;
(d) provide that a disclosure of information is authorized only if the disclosure will contribute to the carrying out by the recipient institution of its national security responsibilities and will not affect any person’s privacy interest more than reasonably necessary;
(e) require that information disclosed be accompanied by information about the accuracy of the disclosed information and the reliability of the manner in which it was obtained; and
(f) require that records be prepared and kept in respect of every disclosure of information and that every year a copy of every record prepared in the preceding year be provided to the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency.
Part 6 amends the Secure Air Travel Act to authorize the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to collect from air carriers and operators of aviation reservation systems, for the purpose of identifying listed persons, information about any individuals who are on board or expected to be on board an aircraft for any flight prescribed by regulation, and to exempt an air carrier from providing that information, or from the application of any provision of the regulations, in certain circumstances. It amends the Act to authorize that Minister to collect personal information from individuals for the purpose of issuing a unique identifier to them to assist with pre-flight verification of their identity. It also reverses the rule in relation to a deemed decision on an application for administrative recourse. Finally, it amends the Act to provide for certain other measures related to the collection, disclosure and destruction of information.
Part 7 amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) make certain procedural modifications to the terrorist listing regime under section 83.‍05, such as providing for a staggered ministerial review of listed entities and granting the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness the authority to amend the names, including aliases, of listed entities;
(b) change the offence of advocating or promoting terrorism offences in general, in section 83.‍21, to one of counselling the commission of a terrorism offence, and make corresponding changes to the definition of terrorist propaganda;
(c) raise one of the thresholds for imposing a recognizance with conditions under section 83.‍3, and amend when that section is to be reviewed and, unless extended by Parliament, to cease to have effect;
(d) repeal sections 83.‍28 and 83.‍29 relating to an investigative hearing into a terrorism offence and repeal subsections 83.‍31(1) and (1.‍1), which require annual reports on such hearings;
(e) require the Attorney General of Canada to publish a report each year setting out the number of terrorism recognizances entered into under section 810.‍011 in the previous year; and
(f) authorize a court, in proceedings for recognizances under any of sections 83 and 810 to 810.‍2, to make orders for the protection of witnesses.
Part 8 amends the Youth Criminal Justice Act to, among other things, ensure that the protections that are afforded to young persons apply in respect of proceedings in relation to recognizance orders, including those related to terrorism, and give employees of a department or agency of the Government of Canada access to youth records, for the purpose of administering the Canadian Passport Order.
Part 9 requires that a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this enactment take place during the fourth year after section 168 of this enactment comes into force. If that section 168 and section 34 of Bill C-22, introduced in the 1st session of the 42nd Parliament and entitled the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, come into force within one year of each other, the reviews required by those sections are to take place at the same time and are to be undertaken by the same committee or committees.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Okay, great. I don't mean to attempt to do your job for you.

As we've heard from a number of witnesses who came before the committee on this bill, and as we heard throughout the debate on Bill C-51 in the previous Parliament, the counselling terrorism offences are superfluous because, as we know, the counselling offence is already in the Criminal Code. Since we've been very keen to avoid perceived redundancies throughout this process, I'm hoping to see support for this particular amendment and to simply eliminate those redundant parts of the counselling terrorism offences that were introduced and are still here in Bill C-59.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

This amendment goes to a distinction between a decision not to delist an entity and a decision to do so in the positive sense, in other words to delist.

Currently under Bill C-59, in all cases involving a delisting application, the Minister of Public Safety is required to make a recommendation to the Governor in Council on whether or not the applicant should remain a listed entity, with the Governor in Council then making the final decision.

On a decision not to delist, since that entity has already been listed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Public Safety, once the public safety minister confirms that the test for listing the entity continues to be met, it is proposed that the minister not be required to then seek further Governor in Council approval for the continued listing of that entity.

In other words, the proposed amendment would amend Bill C-59 by allowing the Minister of Public Safety to be able to make a decision not to delist a listed entity, without having to make a recommendation to the GIC.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

The goal of Bill C-59 is to have modern legislation that corresponds to the new realities and brings us closer to our allies. That is the reason we created the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. We actually had to make up for some shortcomings in order to be at the same level as our allies.

So I feel it is ill-advised to remove this kind of list and to take a step backwards in relation to our allies, with whom we want to collaborate in the fight against terrorism. I am therefore going to vote against this amendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, going back to the fact that C-59 has not repaired the damage done by C-51 as it relates to access for special advocates to all information in the government's possession about particular cases, this amendment is put forward on the advice of Professor Kent Roach, Alex Neve, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. This one is to amend those sections such that the special advocates have full disclosure to all the information in the government's possession relating to security certificates.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I understand. Thank you.

I would echo what Ms. May said, and I find it unfortunate that, for such a broken system, my sense then is that the belief is that we've gotten it right on the first try with C-59 on the government side. That's really too bad, because there are going to continue to be injustices caused by the system, but I'm pleased to support Ms. May's efforts, which mirror my own.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Agriculture and Agrifood

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, it gives me pleasure to be here in the House to speak about a crucial sector of the Canadian economy, namely our agriculture industry.

On December 8, 2017, I asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food a question, and it was answered by the parliamentary secretary. By way of background, my perfectly simple question asked why the Liberals were abandoning farmers.

The parliamentary secretary's answer was about supply management. He reminded us of the Liberals' traditional position of supporting supply management. I strongly suspect it is the same answer we are going to get tonight. However, my question, which the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food did not answer, had other elements. I talked about how the Liberals had abandoned farmers by calling them tax cheats during the tax reforms, trying to take away their deferred cash tickets, and refusing to split Bill C-59 at the time.

Members will recall that back in December 2017, we predicted a crisis in grain transportation. We anticipated that grain transporters in western Canada would have trouble exporting their grain and that a crisis would erupt in the transportation system. We called on the Liberals to take action. Unfortunately, our calls fell on deaf ears, as did the calls of farmers and the industry. A serious crisis did develop, and grain farmers are still suffering the consequences today. That is the reality.

I asked why the Liberals were abandoning farmers. Sadly, not much has happened since. Actually, to be precise, a lot has happened, but to no effect. We have been presented with a budget that made absolutely no mention of agriculture. That is a fact. Now we have proof: since December 8, 2017, in regard to agriculture, the Liberals have abandoned Canadian farmers. What has happened since then? The grain crisis.

The Senate sent amendments to Bill C-59 back to the House. Those amendments could make Bill C-59 acceptable if we manage to adopt them. The Senate sent its amendments to the House over two weeks ago. We have not heard a thing. That is the government response to the amendments to Bill C-59. No news, and the crisis is ongoing. The Liberals refused to pass an order in council to resolve the crisis.

Now, once again, we have a very serious problem before us. What happened in the meantime? Oh, right, the NAFTA negotiations. Something did happen. The parliamentary secretary can give us all the reassurances he wants about supply management, but I have just one little thing to say to him. Despite his and his government's reassuring words, the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec and its president are demanding that the government get tougher and stand firm. They want the Canadian government to say, loudly and clearly, that supply managed sectors will not be opened up to American producers any more than they already are and that we will not sit back and let them impose tariffs on other products.

My question this evening is this: will the parliamentary secretary pledge to the president of the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec and us that supply management will not be opened up any more than it already is? The president is not asking for protection; he is just asking the government not to open up supply management any more.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

For a party that made great hay during the hearings on this bill of supporting people who are wrongly affected by this list, it is important to note, for the record, that the bill actually increases the number of days that the minister has before notifying someone.

Let's be clear here. The way the bill is drafted, even without Bill C-59, if individuals are not receiving a response in an adequate period of time, their names are removed, so essentially what the changes in Bill C-59 do is allow another month, another 30 days for individuals to wait in limbo while they potentially may want to travel.

There aren't a million people on this list. There are obviously thousands who are affected as we've seen in the last number of years, but it's safe to say that if the information is truly accurate, there is no reason why the minister can't address this type of injustice in 90 days. I am calling for 30 days. I appreciate Ms. May's notion of a compromise, which is actually returning to what is currently in legislation prior to Bill C-59.

It is pretty important to note that we're increasing the amount of time the minister has, while individuals are stuck in travel limbo.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I think 120 days, as is proposed in Bill C-59, does in fact give a reasonable time frame to work with here as far as recourse is concerned.

What does that recourse process look like? It includes producing an unclassified summary to be provided to the individual, an opportunity for the individual to fully consider this information and respond, time for the minister to carefully consider all information produced by security agencies and provided by the individual before making a decision, for which 30 days is not enough, nor is 90 days enough for that. That's why I can't support Mr. Dubé's nor Ms. May's amendment.

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

If you'd like me to speak to PV-37 now I will, which is to say that my amendment affects the period of days that are currently referenced in clause 134 in proposed Bill C-59 as 120 days. My amendment would return it to 90 days.

I think Mr. Dubé's is better, but I went with a compromise.

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

Mr. Chair, I do believe that the evidence from many witnesses, as Mr. Dubé said, was that the disclosure requirements with the low threshold of “will contribute to the exercise of the recipient institution's jurisdiction” is far too low a threshold. For this kind of provision, the information sharing should be required to be necessary for the exercise of the recipient institution's jurisdiction. The testimony is very clear on this point, and this was one of the worst sections—although it's hard to pick the worst section of Bill C-51, but this is one of the least improved in C-59. I would hope that this amendment would meet with approval at this point.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As this was already in Bill C-51, we intended to withdraw this amendment from Bill C-59. However, there may be some confusion about it.

Could the officials tell us what the situation is?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Chair, there are several amendments, NDP-9.8 and so forth, which I believe, since they seek to repeal the SCIDA, will be ruled inadmissible. However, it was important for me to move these amendments to make the point that this is probably the most unchanged element of former Bill C-51. These are cosmetic changes at best.

I won't speak to and move all of them, but I want that on the record as the reason for presenting these amendments today. That is a key point for New Democrats with regard to Bill C-59.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I agree with Ms. May entirely and I would simply add that it's even more dangerous, to my mind, in this context, because information sharing is at the heart of one of the most problematic elements of former Bill C-51, now being modified through Bill C-59.

I think the wording that both Ms. May and I are proposing here is far more appropriate and, as she so eloquently pointed out, is what is proposed by many experts who clearly have expertise in the field.

[Cherie Henderson]

Within Bill C-59 or within the threat reduction measurements, we already cannot detain. It's already clearly laid out. Therefore, this is just clarifying. It won't have a negative impact.

[Merydee Duthie]

It's a very technical clarification. It has always been the intent of the drafting of Bill C-59 to allow this. The original wording, which states “The minister or the designated person may, upon the request of the Service, authorize the Service”. It seemed to imply that it couldn't be the director or someone in the service. This amendment is just to clarify that the designated person can be the director or someone in the service. It's a technical clarification based on the drafting wording.