Yes, and I will try to do so quickly.
Regarding the tools the member talked about, a distinction should be made between a useful tool and a necessary tool. Just because a tool is useful in the hands of a police officer, it does not mean that it is absolutely necessary. Many tools can be useful. Police officers could even monitor and enter homes. That could be useful. However, the first question we should ask ourselves, before even wondering whether a tool is consistent with rights and freedoms, is whether it is necessary.
When he testified before the Senate committee, Mr. Fadden, of CSIS—and this is on page 2:11 of the record of proceedings—said that these provisions “might be useful”.
Even though they might be useful, they are not necessary. We agree in saying that these are two extraordinary provisions that cannot be adopted simply because they might eventually be useful.
The issue of judicial independence should also be considered. The obligation to answer a question is not the only thing that matters. We should wonder who is asking the question. Forgive me for using this image, but in the case of judicial investigative hearings, the judge sort of becomes the police officer's ventriloquist. That is what this is about, and judicial independence is being threatened. In fact, the executive branch tells the judge to ask an individual questions, and we know how that has turned out.
As for oversight organizations, I will not share all the conclusions from phase 2 of the Arar commission, but Judge O'Connor consulted the biggest world experts regarding that. He conducted a lengthy study, but this oversight commission on national security has still not been established.