Bill C-36 · 37th Parliament · Jean Chrétien
Anti-terrorism Act
An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other Acts, and to enact measures respecting the registration of charities in order to combat terrorism
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 15, 2001
- Debated in principleOct. 17, 2001
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberNov. 28, 2001
- Passed the second chamberDec. 17, 2001
- Became lawDec. 18, 2001
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Jean ChrétienPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
70% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (52,028 words introduced, 54,235 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept its core purpose of amending criminal law to combat terrorism but underwent extensive technical revisions during passage. Key adjustments expanded definitions, updated cross-references, added assent details, and refined the Attorney General's role in proceedings.
- Added royal assent date and minor preamble wording changes.
Before: “First Session, Thirty-seventh Parliament, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other Acts, and to enact measures respecting the registration of charities, in order to combat terrorism”
After: “First Session, Thirty-seventh Parliament, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other Acts, and to enact measures respecting the registration of charities, in order to combat terrorism”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The text relies on dozens of defined terms and numbered cross-references to specific Criminal Code sections, which narrows many questions to a yes-or-no reading of the lists. At the same time, phrases such as 'in association with a terrorist group' and the multi-paragraph Attorney General rules introduce factual and discretionary arguments that cannot be settled from the text alone.
Open to argument
“an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a terrorist group”
The words 'for the benefit of' and 'in association with' require subjective judgment about relationships and motives rather than an objective checklist.“means either the Attorney General of Canada or the Attorney General or Solicitor General of the province”
Parallel authority is granted without a tie-breaker, leaving choice and potential conflict to officials.
Discretion. The Attorney General of Canada is given explicit power to assume carriage of any prosecution and to prohibit disclosure of information when international relations, national defence or security may be affected.
Challenging the law itself. Broad definitions of 'terrorist activity' and parallel prosecutorial authority could be attacked under Charter sections 2(b), 7 and 11 as vague or overbroad, though the many defined terms and listed offences supply some textual anchors for a court.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused can dispute whether conduct was 'in association with' a terrorist group or whether the Attorney General properly exercised carriage, but the enumerated offences and listed-entity mechanism limit the range of factual arguments.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
No comprehensive official evaluations, audits, or parliamentary outcome assessments directly measure whether the Anti-terrorism Act achieved its objectives of enhancing counter-terrorism capabilities through amendments to the Criminal Code and other laws. Available parliamentary reviews, scholar consultations, and court rulings focus on legal processes, limited use of powers, and Charter compliance rather than empirical effectiveness in combating terrorism.
- Public Safety and Anti-terrorism Initiative Summative Evaluation (2007)evaluationReferenced the parliamentary review and noted constitutional challenges to provisions but provided no assessment of the Act's effectiveness in achieving anti-terrorism goals.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.