Bill C-51: Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Act Provisions and C-59 Changes

Bill C-51, the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, is a Canadian federal law that expanded government powers across five areas: information sharing between federal institutions, active threat disruption by CSIS, new terrorism offenses in the Criminal Code, preventive detention tools, and a statutory no-fly list. It was introduced on January 30, 2015, by the Harper government and received royal assent on June 18, 2015.¹ Most of the framework is still on the books, but the National Security Act, 2017 (Bill C-59) rewrote the parts that drew the strongest criticism, and one of the most controversial tools, preventive arrest with conditions, expired in June 2024.

What Bill C-51 Actually Did

The Act was an omnibus package, which is part of why it is hard to summarize in a line. In practical terms, it did five things:

Created a new statute letting federal institutions share security-related information with a designated list of recipients.
Gave CSIS, for the first time, legal authority to take active measures to reduce threats rather than only gather intelligence.
Added new terrorism-related criminal offenses and a seizure regime for “terrorist propaganda.”
Lowered the legal thresholds for terrorism peace bonds and for preventive arrest with recognizance conditions.
Enacted the Secure Air Travel Act, which is the statutory basis for Canada’s Passenger Protect Program (the no-fly list).

Each of these has its own current status, and they don’t move together. Some remain untouched. Some have been rewritten. One has lapsed entirely.

Information Sharing Across Federal Institutions

Bill C-51 created a new law originally called the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act (SCISA), later renamed the Security of Canada Information Disclosure Act (SCIDA). Its purpose is to allow federal institutions to disclose information to one another when the information relates to activities that undermine the security of Canada.²

Seventeen federal institutions are designated as eligible recipients under Schedule 3, including the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canada Revenue Agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Communications Security Establishment, the RCMP, the Department of National Defence, and FINTRAC.³ Any federal institution can disclose information to one of these recipients if the information is relevant to that recipient’s national security mandate.

The Act carves out lawful advocacy, protest, dissent, and artistic expression from its definition of activities that undermine security, unless those activities are carried out in conjunction with an actual security threat.² After Bill C-59, disclosure also has to satisfy a two-part test: the information must contribute to the recipient’s security responsibilities, and the privacy impact must be no greater than reasonably necessary in the circumstances.⁴

CSIS Threat Reduction Powers

Until Bill C-51, CSIS was strictly an intelligence-gathering body. It could investigate threats but had no legal authority to act against them. Section 12.1 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, added by C-51, changed that. It permits CSIS to take measures, inside or outside Canada, to reduce a threat where there are reasonable grounds to believe an activity threatens the security of Canada.⁵

Under the original text of C-51, CSIS could seek a Federal Court warrant authorizing measures that would contravene the Charter. Bill C-59 rewrote that. The current provision states that all threat reduction measures must comply with the Charter, and a judge can only authorize a measure that limits a Charter right if satisfied the measure is itself Charter-compliant.⁵ The Charter is now a ceiling on these powers, not something a warrant can override.

Other constraints sit alongside that one. Any measure must be reasonable and proportional. CSIS must first consult other agencies about whether they can address the threat through their own authorities. It must notify the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency after acting. And the Act clarifies that threat reduction powers do not give CSIS any law enforcement authority.⁵

New Terrorism Offenses and Propaganda Seizure

Bill C-51 added section 83.221 to the Criminal Code, creating an indictable offense of counselling another person to commit a terrorism offense without needing to identify a specific attack. The maximum penalty is five years, and a conviction can follow even if no terrorism offense was actually committed by the person counselled.⁶ This was the provision often described in public debate as criminalizing the promotion of terrorism in general.

The Act also introduced the concept of “terrorist propaganda”: any writing, sign, visible representation, or audio recording that counsels the commission of a terrorism offense. Section 83.222 lets a judge issue a warrant to seize copies of terrorist propaganda located within the court’s jurisdiction. Section 83.223 goes further for online material. If a judge is satisfied that terrorist propaganda is stored on and made available through a computer system, the judge can order the custodian to provide an electronic copy to the court, remove the material, and identify the person who posted it. If the court eventually finds the material qualifies as terrorist propaganda, it can order permanent deletion.⁶ These offenses and seizure powers remain in force.

Peace Bonds and Preventive Arrest

Bill C-51 changed two preventive tools that are often confused with each other. They work differently, and they have followed different legal paths since 2015.

Terrorism Peace Bonds

Section 810.011 of the Criminal Code allows anyone who fears on reasonable grounds that another person may commit a terrorism offense to seek a peace bond through a provincial court judge, with the Attorney General’s consent. Bill C-51 lowered the threshold from a belief that a person “will” commit an offense to a belief that they “may” commit one. If a judge finds the fear reasonable, they can impose a recognizance lasting up to 12 months, or up to five years if the person has a prior terrorism conviction.⁷

The conditions a judge can attach are broad: participation in a treatment program, wearing an electronic monitoring device at the Attorney General’s request, returning home at specified times, and abstaining from drugs or alcohol. The judge must also consider whether the person should surrender their passport. If the person refuses to enter the recognizance, the judge can commit them to prison for up to 12 months.⁷ These peace bond provisions are still in force.

Recognizance With Conditions (Preventive Arrest)

Section 83.3 was a separate tool that allowed police to arrest and detain a person without charge in order to bring them before a judge, who could then impose conditions to prevent a terrorist activity. Bill C-51 lowered the arrest threshold and extended the maximum period of preventive detention.

Unlike the peace bond, section 83.3 carried a sunset clause. Bill C-59 renewed it with a five-year sunset from that Act’s royal assent, unless both Houses of Parliament passed a resolution to extend it. No resolution passed, and the recognizance with conditions provision sunsetted on June 21, 2024. It is no longer in force, and restoring the tool would require fresh amendments to the Criminal Code.⁸

The No-Fly List: Secure Air Travel Act

Bill C-51 also enacted the Secure Air Travel Act, which is the legal basis for Canada’s Passenger Protect Program. The Minister of Public Safety can place a person on the list if there are reasonable grounds to suspect the person will threaten transportation security, or will travel by air to commit a terrorism-related offense.⁹

Once listed, a person can be denied boarding or subjected to enhanced screening before entering a sterile area of an airport. The Minister must review the entire list every 90 days to determine whether the grounds for each listing still exist, and can remove a name at any time.⁹

A person denied transportation can appeal the Minister’s decision to a judge of the Federal Court within 60 days of receiving notice. The judge must decide whether the Minister’s decision was reasonable and can order the name removed if it was not. Both sides can be heard, and the judge can receive evidence that would not normally be admissible, provided it is reliable and appropriate.¹⁰ The Act remains in force.

What Bill C-59 Changed

The National Security Act, 2017 received royal assent on June 21, 2019. It did not repeal Bill C-51, but it rewrote significant parts of it and added new oversight. The main changes:

SCISA was renamed SCIDA and its disclosure threshold was raised to require both a contribution test and a proportionality test, with mandatory record-keeping and annual reporting.¹¹
CSIS threat reduction warrants can no longer override the Charter; any authorized measure must itself be Charter-compliant.⁵
The preventive arrest power was renewed with a five-year sunset, which expired in June 2024 without extension.⁸
Two new oversight bodies were created: the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA) and the Intelligence Commissioner.

NSIRA can review any activity by CSIS or the Communications Security Establishment, any national-security activity by any federal department, and any matter a minister refers to it. Each year it must review at least one aspect of how CSIS uses its threat reduction powers.¹² The Intelligence Commissioner is a retired superior court judge appointed by the Governor in Council on the Prime Minister’s recommendation for a term of up to five years, and provides quasi-judicial approval of certain intelligence activities before they proceed.¹³ NSIRA reviews after the fact; the Commissioner acts as a check before the fact.

Where Bill C-51 Stands Today

The information-sharing regime is still in place, under the renamed SCIDA and its tighter two-part test. CSIS still has threat reduction authority, but bounded by the Charter and reviewed by NSIRA. The counselling-terrorism offense and the terrorist propaganda seizure provisions remain in the Criminal Code. Terrorism peace bonds under section 810.011 remain available on the lowered “may commit” threshold. The Secure Air Travel Act still governs the no-fly list. The one piece that has fallen away is section 83.3 preventive arrest with recognizance conditions, which sunsetted on June 21, 2024. To understand Canadian national security law as it operates now, Bill C-51 has to be read together with Bill C-59.

1
Parliament of Canada. LEGISinfo – C-51, 41st Parliament, 2nd Session
2
Justice Laws Website. Security of Canada Information Disclosure Act
3
Public Safety Canada. Security of Canada Information Disclosure Act: A Step-by-Step Guide
4
National Security and Intelligence Review Agency. Review of Federal Institutions’ Disclosures of Information Under the Security of Canada Information Disclosure Act in 2024
5
Justice Laws Website. Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act – Section 12.1
6
Justice Laws Website. Criminal Code RSC 1985 c C-46 – Part II.1
7
Justice Laws Website. Criminal Code RSC 1985 c C-46 – Section 810.011
8
Department of Justice Canada. Annual Report by the Attorney General of Canada Concerning Recognizance With Conditions
9
Justice Laws Website. Secure Air Travel Act SC 2015 c 20 s 11
10
Justice Laws Website. Secure Air Travel Act SC 2015 c 20 s 11 – Section 16
11
Government of Canada. Parliamentary Passage of Bill C-59: the National Security Act, 2017
12
Justice Laws Website. National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Act – Section 8
13
Justice Laws Website. Intelligence Commissioner Act SC 2019 c 13 s 50