As best as I can tell, Parliament does not appear to be in the practice of posting witness briefs, even those translated at taxpayer expense. In an effort to track testimony on C-51, a group of diligent students has prepared annotated versions of the bill that includes as much about what witnesses have said about various parts of the law project as possible. There are gaps, and readers should be aware of these. Students relied on the public electronic record — hardcopies of submissions were not always available. Witnesses in oral hearings may have alluded to amendments without providing more details. More than this, written submissions made by persons who did not appear were generally not available. So this record is probably incomplete, but should be helpful anyway in creating a “legislative history” for this particular bill. The annotated sections have been uploaded in Word by “part” of the bill.
- Part 1 (Information sharing)
- Part 2 (no fly)
- Part 3 (peace bonds/preventive detention)
- Part 3 (speech crime)
- Part 4 (CSIS powers)
- Part 5 (IRPA changes)
- Selection of Past Studies and Materials Relevant to C-51 Issues
- Review/Accountability of CSIS
NB: Professor Roach and I obviously have our own views on the bill, but kept at arms length on this process and I have confined my comments to the working groups to structure and format and not substantive content. Our hope is that this will be a resource for the community.
Thanks to the student researchers, including: Taskeen Abdul-Rawoof, Lila Amara, Elsa Ascencio, Monica Befa, Mark Bourrie, Matt Bradley, Prashanth Chandrapal, Michaela Chen, Pinar Cil, Miriam Czarski, Hinal Ghelani, Sam Hamza, David Hebb, Lauren Jamieson, Levi Karpa, Bela Kosoian, Athena Narsingh, Julio Paoletti, Tyler Paquette, Meaghan Patrick, Nicole Rozario, Martin Roy, Christiane Saad, Raya Sidhu, Danielle Swartz, Michele Valentini, Jasmine van Schouwen, Kendra von Eyben, Nicholas Woodward