Mr. Speaker, I would sincerely like to thank my colleague for his speech, because I think it was very honest. He talked about how this legislation is about national security in a very broad way, and the legislation is.
The legislation is called, falsely, the “anti-terrorism act, 2015”, but with so much in it, it goes much beyond that. I wonder if my colleague thinks that part of the problem we have had in this debate is that the government has been presenting the bill as being almost entirely about combatting terrorism when, for example, in the new information sharing act, when the Conservatives define “undermining security of Canada”, seven of the eight headings are not about terrorism. One is about terrorism.
Would the member agree that we would all be further ahead if the government had not been spinning the bill constantly as being only about terrorism?