Bill C-51 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
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
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJan. 30, 2015
- Debated in principleFeb. 23, 2015
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 6, 2015
- Passed the second chamberJune 8, 2015
- Became lawJune 17, 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 30 January 2015, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness introduced Bill C-51, 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 (Security of Canada Information Sharing Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. 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 ident…
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
58% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (19,350 words introduced, 18,906 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept its core structure and most provisions on information sharing and air travel security but saw substantial wording changes and added clarifications during passage. Key adjustments narrowed some language on protected activities and specified limits on further disclosure of shared information.
- Removed the word 'lawful' from the exclusion for advocacy and protest in the definition of activities undermining security.
Before: “For greater certainty, it does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expres- sion.”
After: “For greater certainty, it does not include advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expres- sion.”
- Changed the minister's power over air carriers from directing any necessary actions to directing a specific action.
Before: “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 any necessary actions to prevent the commission of such acts.”
After: “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.”
- Added explicit statement that further use or disclosure of shared information is neither authorized nor prohibited by the Act but must follow other law.
After: “For greater certainty, the use and further disclosure, other than under this Act, of information that is disclosed under subsection 5(1) are neither authorized nor prohibited by this Act, but must be done in accordance with the law, including any legal requirements, restrictions and prohibitions.”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Moderate
The text relies heavily on subjective tests such as reasonable grounds to suspect and the Minister's or judge's opinion, plus broad undefined phrases like serious harm and appropriate. This leaves wide room for argument over coverage rather than clear black-and-white rules.
Open to argument
“reasonable grounds to suspect that the information would be relevant to”
Subjective suspicion standard invites prolonged debate over what meets the threshold.“in the judge's opinion, would be injurious to national security”
Relies on the judge's personal assessment rather than an objective test.“activity that undermines the security of Canada”
Broad and open-ended definition that includes vague concepts like unduly influencing government.
Clear-cut
“within seven days after the day on which it is received”
Fixed time limit creates a clear obligation.“liable to a fine of not more than $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year”
Specific numeric penalties leave little interpretive room.“imprisonment for a term of not more than five years”
Exact maximum sentence provides a bright-line rule.
Discretion. Ministers and officials retain broad power to decide listings, directions, information sharing, and exemptions on the basis of their own suspicions or opinions, with little statutory narrowing.
Challenging the law itself. Vague standards and overbroad definitions readily support Charter challenges under sections 2 and 7 for vagueness and overbreadth.
Disputing a charge under it. Accused persons can readily argue that the Minister lacked reasonable grounds or that the judge's opinion was wrongly formed, given the subjective wording.
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?
partly effective
Official reviews found that the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act (part of C-51) enabled increased information sharing but suffered from significant procedural deficiencies in documentation, privacy protections, and accountability. CSIS threat reduction measures were largely compliant with legal obligations per NSIRA reviews, though one case failed ministerial direction requirements, prompting legislative amendments in 2017 to address concerns.
- Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada Review of the Operationalization of the Security of Canada Information Sharing ActauditSignificant procedural deficiencies in operationalization, including inadequate documentation, transparency, and privacy impact considerations for information sharing.
- House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics Report on SCISAreviewSCISA facilitated national security information sharing but raised privacy concerns; recommended further study and limits on recipient institutions.
- National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Review of CSIS Threat Reduction Measures (2021)reviewCSIS use of threat reduction measures was broadly consistent with law and met Charter and CSIS Act obligations in reviewed cases, with one failure to meet ministerial directions.
- National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Review of SCIDA Disclosures (2024)reviewInstitutions generally complied with SCIDA disclosure and record-keeping requirements, with improvements in processes between IRCC and CSIS.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.