Mr. Chair and members of the committee, when the government, the Conservatives, wrote the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, there was an error in that they seemed to ignore, or forget, the Access to Information Act. That error in drafting meant that the registry couldn't be destroyed as quickly as the Conservatives wanted it to be destroyed.
Instead of going back to Parliament to fix the mistake, someone actually in the government seems to have ordered the RCMP to break the law and destroy the records. The RCMP is now under investigation by the Ontario Provincial Police for this. Maclean's has reported, for instance, that the OPP has confirmed to reporter Aaron Wherry that the investigation is active as of Tuesday of this week. The Information Commissioner, an officer of Parliament, is taking the matter to court.
The Conservatives are using this bill to stop the police investigations, stop the court action, and effectively retroactively make legal that which was illegal at the time. They are destroying any evidence of actions which at the time may have been criminal. So we will never know potentially who ordered what directive or who provided a directive to the RCMP to do what resulted in potentially breaking the law.
It's possible for, for instance, Mr. Rathgeber among others who have a position of opposition to the long-gun registry, to be concerned about this abuse of power, this cover-up. It's not a question of whether one supports or does not support the long-gun registry. It's a question certainly of transparency, certainly of the public's right to know and access to information, which is pretty fundamental to our Parliament, to our Constitution. It also speaks to a pretty flagrant abuse of power.
I have three amendments to allow the criminal investigation to continue so that Canadians can find out what happened and who potentially broke the law.
My first two amendments would stop the destruction of evidence and would protect records from being destroyed “if there are reasonable grounds to believe that they could afford evidence of an act or omission that constitutes an offence under an Act of Parliament.”
My third amendment would delay the coming into force provision of this division so that the OPP investigation could continue. Again, it's aimed specifically at an ongoing police investigation of the OPP. I think it's very reasonable.
Again, it's frustrating because among members of this committee our expertise tends to be around fiscal framework issues and we're asked to opine and participate in debates and ultimately vote on measures in an omnibus bill on issues outside of our typical daily expertise.
I believe that this amendment makes a great deal of sense and would restore some semblance of respect for the law and our proceedings. I don't think any member of this committee, including Conservative members, would want to be complicit with what would appear on the surface to be a pretty flagrant abuse of power. They would probably share Mr. Rathgeber's concerns, notwithstanding their position on the long-gun registry. This is quite distinct from that, so I would hope that we can count on their support as well.
This is not a vote on the long-gun registry. This is simply around ensuring that we respect access to information and that we are not complicit in the shutting down of a police investigation.