Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I know we've been here a long time, but I do have a few things I wish to say at this point. It's sometimes hard to follow when we have the two parties that are supporting the bill arguing the most during the evening. I know that sometimes confuses the people who are watching.
Mr. Norlock made the remark that it's the opposition's duty, or our goal, to cast aspersions on the legislation. I don't need to be reminded of my responsibility, because mine is not to cast aspersions on the legislation; it's to get better legislation in the committee through amendment.
I have to say that I am disappointed that the government's record here is quite clear in rejecting every single suggestion that anyone else has made about their bill, with only their three very modest changes made. In fact “modest” would be a large word to describe the changes that have been made. They're welcome changes but they're very, very modest changes that don't affect this bill.
We'll still be seeking, when we get to report stage, to delete the provisions that we think are most threatening to Canadians' rights and freedoms. That's the vague new criminal offence that tends to lump dissent together with violent extremism. We'll also be trying to get rid of the lower thresholds for preventative detention and for recognizance with conditions. Of course, we heard again and again from witnesses about the dangers of CSIS' new powers of disruption, which, in view of the McDonald commission, which created CSIS, I can't imagine why we're even considering at this time.
We did try to add some effective provisions to those things missing from Bill C-51 this evening. Of course, three of the four things we were trying to do there were ruled out of order. That was to strengthen existing oversight of our security and intelligence agencies and come up with a parliamentary system of oversight that would actually work. Probably the most important, to me, was the attempt to establish a community outreach and de-radicalization coordinator to work with those communities, in particular Muslim and Jewish communities, who have both been working very hard to try to prevent youth being swayed to extremist and sometimes violent ideologies. The fourth of those was trying to have three-year review and sunset clauses. Those, of course, were in order but were all defeated. We also tried to limit the scope of information sharing, to protect Canadians' privacy rights, and to narrow the information sharing envisioned by this bill. Those were, of course, also defeated. Finally, we tried to improve the no-fly list so that those who inadvertently, through no fault of their own and through no misbehaviour of their own, end up caught somehow on the no-fly list have an effective appeal mechanism. We didn't get that either.
From the beginning, we didn't hear all the witnesses who wanted to appear. Of those witnesses we did hear, something like 45 out of 48 said we needed major changes to the bill...or abandoning the bill. We did not get major changes, and we've certainly seen that the government intends to press ahead with this bill.
At the end of this committee process, I wish to thank all those witnesses who appeared and to express my disappointment that the many very good suggestions they made to us, whether in written briefs or when they were here in person, were not listened to by the government and taken up in an attempt to produce a bill that really would meet the threats we face in an effective way while at the same time protecting our Canadian rights and freedoms.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.