Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and take part in this very important debate, a debate that I suspect will give Canadians some assurances about the state of security but may also alarm them to some degree as to the power that may be forfeited if the bill were to pass in its current form. It would give the government what I would describe as unprecedented and somewhat dangerous new powers: powers to hide information, powers to be unaccountable, powers to go against the very principles of transparency that members of the government used to espouse and used to hold so dear.
From a technical point of view the bill touches on no less than 20 acts of Parliament. It is an omnibus bill, which those listening will know is a catch-all that touches on many different forms of legislation before the House of Commons. Security is really not the only the issue. Security is but one of the issues and perhaps the most emotional part of the bill and the one that is to some degree driving the support for this type of legislation. We all know that it came about in the aftermath of September 11. That clearly was a time when there was great alarm and great concern around the country, some of which has dissipated, some of which is still very real.
This piece of legislation is back for the third time now. This is the third incarnation of the bill and is one that members of the government and, I would suggest, members of the opposition and some impartial officers of Parliament like the privacy commissioner have expressed great concern over.
Obviously the obligation on any government is to govern with balance and integrity to ensure that people's interests are being protected, and certainly the obligation is to ensure that there is a degree of scrutiny over its actions. My greatest concern, and I think it is the concern of many who have already spoken, is that the bill backs away from that fundamental principle, that tenet of justice that says there has to be accountability, that there have to be consequences for actions taken.
One of the more controversial elements that the bill touches upon deals with the creation of military zones. This creation aspect of the bill gives interim orders that can be found in no less than eight different sections of the bill. In fact the legislation still allows for the creation of military access zones, albeit not through the direct interim orders that existed in previous legislation. Yet let us make no mistake about it: These interim orders allow the government to suspend the rights and freedoms of Canadians wherever it sees fit.
It brings us back time and time again to the basic question. Do we trust the government to make some of these important decisions? Do we trust not only its ability to make those decisions but its ability to justify them, its ability to be accountable for them?
We have had instances very recently where the solicitor general was questioned on some of his activities. Also, the former Minister of National Defence was questioned about what he said in the House and what he said publicly about the capturing of prisoners in Afghanistan by Canadian soldiers. These are concrete examples of instances where Canadians have questioned their government and questioned specific ministers about decisions they made and about public statements they gave. That is one backdrop to all of this legislation when we talk abut empowering an individual minister to make such important decisions that touch on civil liberties and on important information that can be controlled or withheld.
There are other examples where a military type of operation has been put in place. We saw what happened at APEC, for example, where in Vancouver students were pepper-sprayed by the RCMP over the protesting of a dictator who was visiting Canada. We have seen instances of what I would describe as unruly behaviour in Quebec City. There was certainly concern over security at Kananaskis. These are the types of scenarios that are set up and covered by this type of legislation.
Whenever there is an instance of where Canadians' rights and freedoms can be affected, I think we have to proceed cautiously. We certainly have to proceed with a great deal of detail in looking into the practical effects of enforcement of this type of legislation.
The government would have us believe that it has listened to Canadians on this issue, to members of the opposition and in fact to members of the government's own backbench, and we will see evidence of that later today. But if the government had truly listened, I suggest that we would not be seeing this legislation back in its current form, because there have not been significant attempts, in my view, to throw back the blinds and look at some of the elements of accountability and transparency that the bill touches on. Mobility rights, property rights and freedom of access to information are all very fundamental rights that could be jeopardized if this legislation were accepted holus-bolus. There are shadowy, surreptitious elements to the bill that in my view have to be exposed.
Once again the government has attempted to alleviate the fears of Canadians by simply qualifying when and how these interim orders are to be issued. In this incarnation of the bill, the minister can in effect issue these interim orders that would suspend rights and freedoms of individuals or corporations for a period of 14 days unchecked, that is, the government can make the order and for a full two week period there can be no scrutiny and the order will be in effect.
Other members have mentioned the ability to recall Parliament quickly for the purposes of examining such a decision, such an interim order. I agree with that. I do not think that there is any real impediment to having Parliament recalled when such an important decision is taken, a decision that could have an impact on the lives of Canadians. The bill could have taken greater steps to ensure that those types of decisions would receive Parliamentary scrutiny.
Judicial scrutiny is another element in all of this and it is bypassed to a very large degree by the provisions of the bill. There is some element to take an issue to court, to take an interim order to court, yet having worked in the justice system I can state that the old maxim “justice delayed is justice denied” still rings true today. Because of the complexity of many of the cases, because of the backlog that currently exists in courts throughout the country, by the time an individual is able to access judicial intervention I would suggest that much harm could have been done, many rights could have been infringed and a person could have suffered irreparable harm and harm to a reputation. Harm to a reputation is something that is very difficult to retrieve. Who does one see about getting one's reputation back when one's name has been slandered on the front page of a newspaper or when one's community has been informed that one may be involved in a nefarious act or accused of terrorism or escorted off a plane because of suspected activities? It is a very delicate situation when a person is potentially exposed to that type of persecution.
That is not to say for one minute, and I want to be quick to point this out, that the police, CSIS, members of the RCMP or even the military police, who are often in the role of enforcement, would do so negligently, with any malice or irresponsibly. What I am getting at is that this type of legislation sets up scenarios in which the proper checks and balances, the proper ability to examine the exercise of authority, are undermined. This is, I suggest, partly arising out of an attitude that is very prevalent. It is persistent within the government and we have seen evidence of it for a number of years.
I would suggest that this type of legislation can be a convenient tool for government to concentrate more power, more state control, and that state control can impact very negatively on civil rights or liberties. In effect this type of decision taken could last a year. It is fair to say that this type of power could be described as power for the sake of power in many instances. I think that Canadians feel more cynical and even apathetic to the point of not participating in the democratic process when they see this type of power being exercised. It is almost a collective form of the Stockholm syndrome when it comes to the government. Canadians are starting to simply accept and acquiesce to the government's decisions because they are feeling hopeless. They are feeling that they have been co-opted and that the opposition is not able to even hold the government to a higher form of account.
That is why there is a need for rigorous debate. There is a need for rigorous examination at the committee level, by the media, by members of Parliament and even by members of the government side who have in many instances distinguished themselves in other fields and who have been able to criticize the government in a constructive way. At the end of it all, that is surely what we should try to accomplish: the best form of legislation and the best, most accountable and most transparent system of government.
I cannot help but feel some frustration when I look at this type of bill and see the elements of the power grab for the minister. There are insufficient checks and balances, I would suggest, implicit in this legislation. For example, in part 3 dealing with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, in order to have an interim order remain for a duration longer than 14 days the minister must, within 24 hours after making the order, consult with all affected governments to determine whether they are prepared to take sufficient action to deal with the sufficient danger. That allows for a consultation but it is consultation after the fact: 14 days and then an additional 24 hours.
To this I say that we are putting the cart before the horse. It belittles other levels of government and in effect could in fact be seen as a coercive tool used for manipulation. Let us say, for example, that the environment minister believes there is a sufficient danger to the environment in the eastern townships in Quebec. The minister can immediately issue an interim order and in effect suspend all rights and freedoms. However, under this section of the bill, should the minister wish to extend the 14 day period, he then would have to consult with all of the affected governments to determine whether they are prepared to take sufficient action to deal with the danger.
Let us say that the government has taken action and 14 days later or 15 days later it then goes about consulting with another level of government. Then, let us say, the government, that is, the minister, determines whether the province would be prepared to take sufficient action. This section of the bill basically gives the minister the ability to tell any level of government, whether it is provincial, territorial or municipal, that if it does not act on the minister's recommendation the minister will act on their behalf and impose the will of the state upon that province. This is not consistent with consultation. This is not consistent with a cooperative approach to federalism or with a cooperative approach to anything, for that matter, be it in an emergency situation or otherwise.
This, I would suggest, is again symptomatic of a government that has gone down the road of being provocative toward the provinces and giving them the stick in the eye approach. We have seen evidence of that on Kyoto. We have seen evidence of that with the consultations on health. There are numerous examples we can point to over almost a decade where the government has been belligerent to and disrespectful of the provinces and the municipalities, all the while knowing that those forms of government in many ways are far more directly accountable and far more in touch with the people in our country, and I would expect that on some of these important issues, but for the financing and the money that ultimately comes from the federal government, they are more effective in their ability to represent people's rights on important issues.
What happens if a municipality, province or territory decides to take sufficient action, in its opinion, to deal with the danger but the action is deemed inappropriate by the minister? Obviously the federal government's state imposed measures would take precedence, which threatens the very sovereignty upon which the country was founded, that is, there was a division of provincial and federal powers, not to mention the separation of powers laid out in sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution.
There are a number of problems with the bill. That was but one example. There is another that comes to mind clearly as a concrete example. If there were to be an environmental disaster on the Ottawa River just behind the Parliament buildings where there are two provincial jurisdictions and a municipal jurisdiction involved, there is confusion as to what effect this bill would have.
I suggest that there are so many problems with the bill that we are not going to have time to deal with all of them today in this sitting. Some have compared previous incarnations to the Trudeau War Measures Act. Once again I would suggest that it is perhaps a back to the past approach to legislation, a clawback to darker days when secret powers existed and decisions were being made in backrooms, as opposed to the transparency received in the House of Commons. I would suggest that it is a bill that in many instances is not necessary and poses a fundamental risk and a fundamental threat to freedom of civil liberties and freedom for Canadians. In terms of a threat to national security, we already have very effective legislation that can deal with unforeseen circumstances in times of emergency and crisis. We could amend that act if it were deemed necessary by the government.
The bill, which came in response to terrorist attacks, ironically does not mention terrorism. It does not deal specifically with issues of international threats to peace and security. It does have everything to do with an accumulation of power and the hiding of information, a government clearly that has demonstrated it already has too much power and not enough accountability. It has a style and an attitude, one that has been pervasive now for a number of years.
We in the opposition hope that at the committee level the legislation will receive a greater degree of scrutiny. Perhaps some specific, practical, on the ground effects could result. We will hear from witnesses who will have examined this legislation in detail. However, because of the number of bills that are affected, it will take some time to do that.
We may even see members of the government take a more active role in this process. In recent days we have seen backbench members flex their muscles. There will be a vote before the House this afternoon. While I realize that this afternoon's display is more about positioning in the ranks of the Liberal Party, I will remain optimistic that while the sitting Prime Minister is still in office we may enter into a new realm of accountability and of openness to change in this place. This will not be brought about by malice, or revenge or the settling of old political scores. It will be for the greater good.
The bill has very far reaching and long term implications for Canada. It touches on many other pieces of legislation. In the short time this Prime Minister has left in office, there is reason to express concern that this convoluted legislation might be used for purposes of hiding information that could be damaging from a partisan, political perspective. There is reason to raise this.
We have seen in the past instances of behaviour by officials under the watch of the government with respect to advertising contracts in the province of Quebec and with respect to the awarding of appointments and contracts in other provinces like Prince Edward Island. This is not something dreamed up by partisan opposition members. There are concrete examples that we can point to as to why we might be concerned about the government's ability to hide information about its activities.
This because I am a conspiracy theorist or that it is all about scoring political points. We have seen concrete examples that lead us to have concerns about the ability of the government of hiding information about its activities and what it is doing when making arbitrary decisions.
We have seen the government for almost a decade lump legislation together that in many cases does not relate to one another. For example, what does pest control have to do with the Aeronautics Act? This is chalk and cheese. This is not the type of legislation that should be placed in a single bill. I suggest that this omnibus approach has been abused again. It is one that glosses over perhaps and is an attempt to confuse the issues.
The federal privacy commissioner has raised alarms in the past and may raise alarms again, citing grave concerns about sections of the act which allow the RCMP to obtain airline passenger information when it is searching for individuals under warrant. He believes that the precedent may be set by this provision which would ultimately open the door to unwarranted police searches and which could result in the loss of privacy rights in this country.
Section 5 of the bill amends the department of citizenship and immigration act to permit the minister to enter into agreements or arrangements to share information with provinces or foreign governments. Is there a reciprocal piece of legislation in the requesting country? There are concerns about writs of mutual assistance. All these questions will have to be asked and fleshed out at committee level.
Section 11 of the amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act allow for the making of regulations relating to the collection, retention, disposal and disclosure of information for the purposes of that act. There are concerns about the way this will be exercised. Will this information cause individuals problems in areas of their every day life such as credit ratings, travel, or entrance into certain jobs or certain institutions?
Privacy in the name of terrorism is a very difficult issue to deal with for many Canadians. We have to make sure that the ministerial prerogative will be subject to scrutiny at all levels.
I note that I am out of time. I truly wish there was more time to discuss this bill. That will come at the committee level. I look forward to the questions and comments that will follow and further debate on this important subject.
