Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I echo what you said about our witnesses. I know it's not easy to be here. Let's face it. Not many people are spending their Wednesday nights on Parliament Hill at 10:48, serving the Canadian public while being bright-eyed, bushy-tailed and always having to be on guard for a question, so we appreciate this.
Sometimes, we as MPs may trade barbs. Sometimes we may ask you difficult questions. Sometimes there might be moments that are a bit more serious. Sometimes there might be moments that are a bit more lighthearted. You don't have a choice in that. You have to come here and answer the questions that are posed to you, and you have to be ready for a spinoff question that may come your way. For that, we are grateful.
Mr. Chair, we have 30 minutes to discuss this. I'm on the speaking list, and I think that Ms. Kirkland, Mr. Au and Mr. Lloyd will probably be after me.
I will say this. We're all ready for summer, but that doesn't mean that summer has started. There is still work to be done. There's work to be done this evening, and there's work to be done tomorrow. At the end of the day, Bill C-22 is a contentious piece of legislation. It was contentious from the get-go.
Most people here have heard ad nauseam about my background as a prosecutor, in which the access to data or the access to evidence was central to whether a conviction followed. I understand that. There is no doubt in my mind that lawful access is something that our House, the chamber upstairs, must address—not should, but must. The question is about how we address it.
I have now seen what is probably the most aggressive programming motion during my five years here in Parliament. A programming motion basically tells us how and when we must consider something.
We have to get through amendments without discussion tonight. That is the gist of it: no discussion on a bill that is probably over 100 pages long. We have to get through the amendments without discussion.
Now, say what you want about lawful access. Like me, you may think there is a necessity for a lawful access regime. The question is, what does it look like? You may say you don't want any lawful access because it infringes on your civil liberties, or you may say that you are prepared to trade privacy for lawful access in order to accede to the arguments that have been put forward by some.
At the end of the day, we are here to work and we are here to debate. There is one thing we will not do in 28 minutes, and that is debate. The motion that was passed in the House tonight precludes debate. It precludes debate on matters of privacy, on matters that may impact the charter. No, I shouldn't say they may; they do impact the charter. They engage section 8 of the charter, and here we are, talking about provisions that we will pass without debate, that a court will someday be considering. Make no mistake, someday a court will consider the words that we pass on paper here. They will decide the constitutionality of those words, and we are expected to pass those words without debate. That is unconscionable.
For 12 years we've had a Liberal government. We got this motion put on us on Tuesday, before we left—Tuesday—not Monday and not the Friday before, but Tuesday. In fact, the Liberal government put forward a wish list of bills they wanted passed. Do you know what wasn't on the list? Bill C-22. Yes, I'm a bit animated here. The government said they didn't want this bill, but literally at the last minute, Wednesday night, we are talking about amendments that impact each and every Canadian.
Make no mistake that on the Conservative side, we all want to put bad people in jail, but this ain't the way to do it. To have amendments rammed down our throats without debate and without discussion is patently wrong.
Yes, we will sit here at the table. Yes, we will oblige with the process. We will adhere to democracy. The motion that was passed. That doesn't mean we like it. Moreover, it doesn't make it right. What is happening here may have been duly passed, but it is wrong.
One day, in two years, three years or five years, a court may be reviewing our words. They may well look at what happened here tonight and talk about the lack of discussion and consideration when they are reviewing whether amendments put forward, which aren't even public yet.... We can't even talk about this.
By the way, who breached parliamentary privilege with the Toronto Star? Am I in the twilight zone here? They don't know.
I think my point has been made. We are here, and we are here to work. This is not the right way to work. We will do our jobs. This is not the climate in which we were expected to do our jobs.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
