The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security will hold its clause-by-clause review of Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism bill, this morning. The government is expected to introduce several modest amendments that experts note do little to address some of the core concerns with the bill. While there is some tinkering with the information sharing provisions, the law will still allow for widespread sharing without effective oversight from the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Moreover, key concerns with respect to the CSIS Act (warrants that can violate Charter rights) and broader oversight and accountability remains untouched.

None of this comes as a surprise. Earlier in the committee hearings, Green Party leader Elizabeth May lamented that “the hearing process is a sham. They’re not listening to witnesses.” Now that the hearings have concluded, the data bears this out. Witnesses from across the political spectrum called for changes to the information sharing rules, to oversight, to the CSIS powers, and to the advocating or promoting terrorism provision, yet Conservative MPs never bothered to listen.

Few legislative issues are as important as the security and privacy of Canadians, but the entire hearings were structured to avoid hearing from experts, to asking irrelevant questions, or to bringing in witnesses with scant knowledge of the proposed bill. Just how bad was it? The Bill C-51 hearings by the numbers:

Conservative MPs (Roxanne James, Rick Norlock, Diane Ablonzcy, LeVar Payne, Ted Falk)

49: Number of external witnesses

16: Number of hours spent in committee with external witnesses

25: Number of times a Conservative MP asked a substantive question about a Bill C-51 provision (Payne (7), Falk (6), Norlock (6), Ablonzcy (3), James (3))

3: Number of times a Conservative MP asked a critic a substantive question about a Bill C-51 provision (Falk (2), Ablonzcy (1))

4: Number of times a Conservative MP asked one or fewer questions during their time due to long statements (Norlock (2), Ablonzcy (1), James (1))

3: Number of times LeVar Payne asked if CSIS or the RCMP is too busy to ask government for information on protesters (Davies, Morrison, Toronto Police Association)

2: Number of times Roxanne James interrupted critics of Bill C-51 with points of order or questions to the chair during their statements or responses (CCLA, Open Media)

4: Number of times Diane Ablonzcy asked about jihadi or ISIS threats (Cooper, NCCM, Heritage Foundation, CIJA)

1: Number of times Diane Ablonzcy questioned whether the witness was committed to fighting terrorism (NCCM)

1: Number of times Rick Norlock asked a witness if they “opposed taking terrorists off the street” (BCCLA)

1: Number of times Roxanne James asked witnesses to comment on “unhelpful information” being circulated about information sharing (Davies)

1: Number of times Diane Ablonzcy said she struggled with the relevance of former Senator Hugh Segal’s concerns (Segal)

The Witnesses

9: Number of witnesses who did not comment on C-51 specifics in their opening statements (Davies, Collacott, Gora, Neumann, Quigan, American Islamic Forum for Democracy, Nawaz, Boisvert, Center for Security Policy )

8: Of those who were supportive of Bill C-51 (Davies, Collacott, Gora, Neumann, Quigan, American Islamic Forum for Democracy, Boisvert, Center for Security Policy)

12: Number of Canadian privacy commissioners who have publicly criticized Bill C-51

0: Number of appearances by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

0: Number of appearances by any Canadian (federal or provincial) privacy commissioner

3: Number of U.S. groups with no Canadian connections who appeared as witnesses (American Islamic Forum for Democracy, Heritage Institute, Center for Security Policy)

135: Number of pages Professors Craig Forcese and Kent Roach wrote in four background papers on Bill C-51

3: Number of questions posed directly to Forcese and/or Roach by Conservative MPs

1: Number of immigration “experts” who could not answer a direct question (asked three times) on the immigration provisions in Bill C-51 (Collacott)

1: Number of witnesses who argued that critics of Bill C-51 were unaware of the increasing threat of terrorism and tide of hatred at Canadian university campuses (Benlolo)

1: Number of witnesses who pointed to the need for Parliamentary oversight and claimed that Bill C-51 included it (Center for Security Policy)

1: Number of witnesses who, when asked what gaps Bill C-51 fills, responded that it allows police to monitor what people say in public (Sheehy)