Bill S-7 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Combating Terrorism Act
An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedFeb. 14, 2012
- Debated in principleMarch 7, 2012
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 30, 2012
- Passed the second chamberApril 24, 2013
- Became lawApril 24, 2013
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- Linda FrumSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Kevin LamoureuxLiberal member participates in debate without objection and contrasts with other leaders' statements on terrorism.
- Candice Bergenbacks the bill to give law enforcement tools against terrorism threats shown in Boston
- Steven FletcherStates the legislation is necessary based on recent terrorism examples.
- Kerry-Lynne FindlayPresents the bill positively as re-enacting needed provisions with improvements.
- Robert Goguenspeaks in favour of the bill as targeted criminal law reform after committee review
- Cheryl GallantDefends the bill's provisions for protecting youth and deterring terrorism.
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.
What it set out to do
On 15 February 2012, the Leader of the Government in the Senate introduced Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act (Combating Terrorism Act), in the Senate and it was given first reading. The bill amends the Criminal Code • to provide for an investigative hearing where individuals with information about a terrorism offence that has been or will be committed would be compelled to appear before a judge and answer questions. Numerous safeguards would be attached to this power, including an annual report with opinions by the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of Public Safety on whether these provisions should be extended; • to provide for the imposition of a recognizance with conditions on a person to prevent them from carrying out a terrorist activity. A peace officer with reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorist activity will be carried out and that the imposition of a recognizance with conditions on a particular person is necessary to prevent a terrorist activity from being carried out, then the peace officer could apply to a judge to have the person compelled to appear before him or her; • to create of…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. · 2012-10-23 · Passed
What the Senate tried to change
- technicalSenator DayAllow any judge of the same court, not only the original judge, to vary conditions in a recognizance-with-conditions order under clause 10.Adopted · May 16, 2012 · Senate record
How it changed on the way
81% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (10,148 words introduced, 6,076 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core provisions on investigative hearings, recognizance with conditions, and new leaving-Canada offences remained intact from introduction to royal assent. Minor expansions were added to the order terms and a new execution clause was inserted.
- Expanded the judge's discretion in protective terms of the information-gathering order.
Before: “include any other terms or conditions that the judge considers desirable, including terms or conditions for the protection of the interests of the person named in the order”
After: “include any other terms or conditions that the judge considers desirable, including terms or conditions for the protection of the interests of the person named in the order and of third parties or for the protection of any ongoing investigation.”
- Added explicit authority for nationwide execution of the order.
After: “(6) The order may be executed anywhere in Canada. Execution of order (7)”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill sets fixed maximum prison terms and lists exact new offences with clear cross-references to other Criminal Code sections. At the same time it repeatedly uses phrases such as 'reasonable grounds to believe', 'necessary to prevent', and 'likely to carry out' that require judges to weigh future risk and decide what conditions are 'desirable'.
Open to argument
“a person who is likely to carry out a terrorist activity”
The word 'likely' is a predictive standard that invites argument over how probable the future act must be.
Clear-cut
“liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years”
States a fixed maximum sentence that leaves no doubt about the upper limit.
Discretion. Peace officers decide when to apply and judges decide whether grounds exist and what conditions or detention periods are required, with no further limits set by regulation or ministerial direction in the text.
Challenging the law itself. The preventive recognizance and investigative-hearing provisions rest on future-risk tests that could be attacked under Charter sections 7 and 9 as vague or overbroad.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused can dispute whether the peace officer's suspicion met the 'reasonable grounds' or 'necessary' standard on the particular facts, requiring the Crown to prove those elements in court.
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 statutory, parliamentary, audit, or departmental evaluation specifically assessing whether the Combating Terrorism Act (Bill S-7) achieved its objectives of enabling effective investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions to combat terrorism was identified. Annual usage reports and pre-2013 parliamentary reviews of related provisions exist but do not evaluate post-2013 outcomes or effectiveness.
- Annual Report by the Attorney General of Canada Concerning Recognizance with Conditions (2023-2024)reviewThe recognizance with conditions provision sunsetted on June 21, 2024, with zero consents sought or warrants issued in the reporting period, and no parliamentary review completed to extend it.
- House of Commons Subcommittee on the Review of the Anti-terrorism Act Interim Report (2006)reviewPrior to Bill S-7, no uses of investigative hearings were reported, and the provisions were recommended for limited extension with safeguards.
- Justice Canada Annual Reports on Recognizance with Conditions (various years, e.g., 2014-2015)reviewUsage statistics in annual reports consistently show minimal or zero applications of the specific recognizance powers under section 83.3.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.