I move amendment CPC‑2.
I will speak to this amendment, which is really critical, in my view.
Before I begin, I think we can agree that the act provides substantial power to the minister. At the end of the day, though, that power has to be checked, and there really are a couple of ways to check it.
What the act does now is an ex post facto, or after the fact, review. In other words, there is a method to judicially review the act and when that happens, a judge says that, yes, the exercise of authority under the act was appropriate or, no, it wasn't, but that happens after.
My position, our position, is that the review, where possible, should occur beforehand. In other words, when there is time to get judicial authorization, then judicial authorization should occur, so that the exercise of considerable power is not just reviewed; it is at the outset conferred upon the court, which is independence. In that case, when there is an opportunity to do so, we will have an assurance that an independent body has reviewed the ministerial proposal and what is proposed to be done pursuant to the act, and they can give a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down. I think that is actually much more prudent than reviewing it after the fact.
We review things after the fact in this country all the time. As we have recently seen.... Sometimes we do see it and sometimes we don't, but sometimes we see that mistakes are made. I think we should actually be trying to address those mistakes before they are made.
There is one thing I would like to ask the officials, and I hope I spoke clearly on this. Could a clause like this work in conjunction, perhaps, with some sort of ex parte requirement wherein if it isn't practicable, if time is of the essence...but where it is practicable, we could address it through this sort of judicial authorization?
I'd love to get the officials' input on that, please.
