I do have a couple of questions, if I may.
As you mentioned in your introduction, there has been some controversy about this bill. I am concerned about the second criterion that it must not clearly violate the Constitution Acts. I'd like to get a little more elaboration on that, on where that line is, because Minister MacKay himself has said outside of question period that when protests occur in front of some infrastructures, such as the pipelines that might be going through Vancouver, protesters could be held criminally responsible.
I'm also worried about the way this bill is written. We're talking about how anybody who “obstructs” any “critical infrastructure” could be held criminally liable. It's clearly stated that “critical infrastructure” includes any “facility, network, service or asset” that provides a public service and that “the disruption... could produce serious adverse economic effects”.
This strikes me as being very broad, especially since we already have section 430 in the Criminal Code that deals with mischief and has much more clearly defined parameters. This seems to be creating a very wide parameter. To me, this is clearly an affront to some fundamental freedoms as defined by the charter. We have the right of peaceful assembly and we have the right of association. A union who is protesting, for example, the postal workers protesting in front of a post office, could be considered criminally responsible for obstructing an asset that could produce a serious adverse economic effect.
To me, this bill really goes quite far. I'd like to go back to criterion number two. Could you elaborate?