Bill C-44 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act
An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 27, 2014
- Debated in principleNov. 18, 2014
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberFeb. 2, 2015
- Passed the second chamberApril 1, 2015
- Became lawApril 22, 2015
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
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
The pre-release version of this Legislative Summary is now available. Parliamentarians and their staff can obtain a copy by submitting a request or contacting the Library of Parliament. Members of the public can obtain a copy by the contacting the Information Service at the Library of Parliament. On 27 October 2014, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness introduced Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other Acts (Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-44 amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to give greater protection to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service’s human sources. Also, so as to enable the Service to more effectively investigate threats to the security of Canada, the enactment clarifies the scope of the Service’s mandate and confirms the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to issue warrants that have effect outside Canada. In addition, it makes a consequential amendment to the Access to Information Act. The enactment also amends the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act to allow for the coming into force of provisions relating …
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
64% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (2,290 words introduced, 2,220 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept its core amendments to CSIS source protection and extraterritorial warrants but saw 64 percent of the introduced text altered, mainly in citizenship regulation clauses and formal headings. Minor expansions added assent details and adjusted regulatory language on information disclosure without shifting the overall purpose.
- Updated parliamentary session years and added royal assent date in the title block.
Before: “Second Session, Forty-first Parliament, 62-63 Elizabeth II, 2013-2014”
After: “Second Session, Forty-first Parliament, 62-63-64 Elizabeth II, 2013-2014-2015”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill mixes tight procedural steps and a clear definition of human source with repeated subjective tests such as reasonable grounds, judicial opinion, and likelihood. These open-ended phrases create room for argument over what the rules cover in any given case.
Open to argument
“believes, on reasonable grounds, that a warrant under this section is required”
The phrase leaves the threshold for seeking a warrant to an official's assessment rather than an objective checklist.“if, in the judge's opinion, its disclosure would be injurious to national security or endanger the safety of any person”
Disclosure turns on the judge's personal view instead of a fixed statutory standard.“or is likely to provide information to the Service”
The word likely introduces a predictive and subjective element into the core definition.“the judge may order the disclosure that the judge considers appropriate subject to any conditions that the judge specifies”
The grant of power is open-ended and depends on whatever the judge deems suitable.
Clear-cut
“"human source" means an individual who, after having received a promise of confidentiality, has provided, provides or is likely to provide information to the Service”
The term is explicitly defined with a single factual trigger.“The hearing of the application shall be held in private and in the absence of the applicant and their counsel, unless the judge orders otherwise”
The default rule and exception are stated in black-and-white terms.
Discretion. Ministers must approve warrant applications, judges decide what disclosure is appropriate and whether national-security injury exists, and the Governor in Council sets coming-into-force dates by order.
Challenging the law itself. Subjective phrases such as 'in the judge’s opinion' and 'likely to' could support a vagueness or overbreadth claim under Charter sections 7 or 2(b), though the detailed procedural scheme makes success uncertain.
Disputing a charge under it. A person accused of improper disclosure can argue over whether the information actually allowed identity to be inferred or whether an exception for innocence applied, but the private-hearing rules limit the practical ability to test the facts.
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
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.