Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks of the member opposite.
In the context in which we now find ourselves, it is not easy to criticize such a bill, but my duty as a parliamentarian does compel me to point out that the only acts of terrorism I have ever known in my entire life in Canada were committed by the RCMP. They burned barns. An RCMP officer had a bomb explode in his hands on the steps of the Steinberg family residence. I recall this incident, which took place in 1970.
Law enforcement officers running wild are very dangerous. While full of good intentions, this bill fails totally to provide a control mechanism or structure.
Just days ago, we received some 150 recommendations from the Canadian Police Association. If we were to grant their request, you and I both, Mr. Speaker, would be stuck in some holding tank, in a glass enclosure, and stripped of our individual freedom.
I understand that it is the nature of police work to exercise control over just about anything that moves. Policing, we are told, is a necessary evil, but parliamentarians must not be too easily swayed by these kinds of claims.
The bill to combat terrorism lacks controls. It is permanent. Yes, it is up for review in three years. Does the member not think that when those three years are up it should be extended by a vote in parliament rather than continuing in force forever, as long as parliament has not recalled it? I would recommend the opposite approach. This is a very dangerous bill.
Even in its wildest dreams, the Canadian Police Association never dared hope it would be given so many powers in a single document as it would be with this bill.
Does the member not see a certain threat to individual freedoms in this, despite the good intentions?