Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Since I'm here only as a result of a majority vote of this committee identical to all the others undertaken through a motion obviously drafted in PMO that deprives me of my right to do so at report stage, I accept the opportunity, but I also have to note that there's a bit of coercion involved. I'm very glad to have the chance, Mr. Chair, to present amendments anywhere in the Parliament of Canada; it is my right as a member of Parliament.
I am again attempting to take up the case made by the NDP amendment that was just defeated. I just want to respond that what my amendment does is one more thing than what Randall's attempted to do, which is that I also deal with the provision that in the current draft reads:
For greater certainty, it does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent
and so on.
Let me go to the first part of what I was trying to do. The definition is from the CSIS Act, and I reject the explanations given to us by the Department of Justice. They are nonsense. I'm sorry, but I don't have much time to go into why I think they're nonsense.
Secondly, I think the word “however” is clearer than “for greater certainty”; it becomes an actual exemption, as opposed to merely advice.
I know that the government amendment that's coming up soon, which I would support, removes the word “lawful”, which is one of the things my amendment does. But the government amendment doesn't deal with this question of “for greater certainty” versus “however”.
There is no more serious thing than sharing information inappropriately. Just ask Maher Arar.