I wasn't going to answer your question directly, but rather make a comment on the spirit of this bill.
We have repeated a number of times that, as far as we are concerned, this kind of bill has no purpose in a democratic, transparent society that is respectful of the process of law.
Regardless of the situation, our penal system—you know this better than I, since you are a lawyer—has all the necessary levers to deal with criminals. As regards terrorists—at least if someone is considered a potential terrorist—they are criminals as well. So we don't see why there would be any reason to debate this kind of bill.
According to Ms. Barnes, it seems you virtually don't have a choice: you've received a bill on second reading, you're limited to the type of amendments that you can make to it and you have to work within these limits.
In our view, as far as the Arab community is concerned, the Bloc Québécois has always been progressive. It has always been the path to follow when it came to protecting our civil liberties and human rights. How can it even consider debating such a bill?