Public Safety committee  I agree completely. I was also involved in the Air India commission. One of the things that we really came up with there was the lack of actionable intelligence around that particular flight when we recreated what was available to them. I think it's important to distinguish intelligence in general, gathering data in general, and so on, and actionable intelligence that actually can be used in the real world.

Public Safety committee  No.

Public Safety committee  That's a pretty big question.

Public Safety committee  Yes, it's a pretty big issue. I think you have to look at the bigger picture. On Bill C-51, I want to re-emphasize that my objections—and I think the objections of a lot of the critics of Bill C-51—are not just on the civil liberties, personal privacy, and all of those kinds of perfectly valid issues, but on the concern that it may actually render counterterrorism less effective.

Public Safety committee  I would. I haven't seen that particular piece yet. I think that certainly, in general, there is a real concern that the counter-radicalization strategies.... Frankly, I certainly don't call myself an expert in this area, but I have looked at all this. I'm not sure that anybody has a really good answer here about what to do.

Public Safety committee  I was actually an adviser on the Arar commission, through Justice O'Connor, and that was a pretty vivid example of what can go terribly wrong for an innocent Canadian citizen when data is shared indiscriminately and without the kinds of controls. There is, I think, a constant pressure to push against the constraints on that information sharing.

Public Safety committee  Perhaps I can just say a couple of things. You pointed to a problem. There is a problem, clearly, with peace bonds. I think that's clear, especially given the recent case in Ontario—which was, frankly, a bit ridiculous—that somebody had been put under a peace bond and yet had clearly broken the terms of it and all the rest of it, and then was only apprehended just in the nick of time from carrying out some serious damage.

Public Safety committee  No.

Public Safety committee  Personally, I don't have a problem. The BCCLA may not agree with this, but I don't have a problem, in Bill C-51, where they actually expanded that somewhat, and the time, and also lowered the bar a bit. I don't have a particular problem with that because it in fact involves habeas corpus and legal representation at all stages, and so on, for the individuals.

Public Safety committee  My preference certainly would be that the entire section of Bill C-51 that deals with threat reduction powers be eliminated in its entirety.

Public Safety committee  It's a very complicated question, and I'm not a lawyer. I know that, for example, there's this kind of two-court system with regard to evidence and intelligence. You have one court hearing a case and then potentially another court determining whether non-disclosure can be imposed on certain evidence in there.

Public Safety committee  I'm not saying that they haven't, and I'm not privy to all the details of the various cases that would have arisen. My concern is not that CSIS, as they develop sources and penetrate different terrorist groups, may from time to time seize the opportunity to disrupt, which is in the public interest so long as it's not law-breaking or violating charter rights.

Public Safety committee  I would certainly like to add my voice to applauding the initiative of opening up national security to wider public participation as with these committee hearings. It's certainly a contrast to the way in which Bill C-51 was carried through the last Parliament. A better-educated public is crucial to democratic decision-making, as is the enhanced role of Parliament as we see put forward in Bill C-22.