Mr. Speaker, Bill C-55 is a replacement for the original anti-terrorism bill which garnered so much opposition and outrage that it was scrapped.
The purpose of the bill is to strengthen the law against acts of terror. All Canadians want to have strong measures to protect us against possible terrorist attacks or terrorist activity in our country. We want to be safe.
Unfortunately the bill also has some very glaring flaws. It would amend 19 different acts of parliament, implement one international treaty and have an impact on nine different ministries.
There are three problems with the bill. The first one is that it is pretty much a poor imitation of the U.S. aviation security act. This is a government that likes to always deride and decry anything that comes from the U.S. but here it is bringing in an important bill which is really an imitation of a U.S. bill and not even a very good one.
The second and most important problem with the bill is that it really amounts to a huge power grab by the cabinet.
The third problem with the bill is that it is too little too late. The U.S., which the Liberals are imitating here, put a bill together in about six weeks after September 11 despite an anthrax scare it was dealing with where even members of government were receiving anthrax through the mail.
The government has now had eight months and all the bill would do is put in place timid half measures and make a power grab.
The problem with the bill with respect to the power grab is that it gives a number of ministers the authority to issue what is called interim orders. These interim orders would allow those ministers to act without consulting anybody. They would not have to consult cabinet, let alone parliament or anybody else.
The ministers who would have this power would be the environment minister, the health minister, the fisheries and oceans minister and the transport minister. However, the increase in authority that would be given to these ministers is not accompanied by any specifics. No framework has been put around the kinds of instances when ministers might exercise this kind of unfettered authority.
Canadians watching the debate might say to themselves that does not make sense. If there is a huge, immediate crisis they are probably saying that someone should be able to act immediately to deal with it.
On the face of it everyone might agree but I see three problems with it. The first problem is that we have not seen the kind of competence and trustworthiness on the part of government ministers that would allow us to be comfortable with that huge amount of power.
It does not give me any joy to say that, even as a member of the opposition. I as a Canadian want to see ministers with whom I might disagree from time to time or criticize from time to time but who I believe are fundamentally competent, honest and credible individuals.
As we have seen over the last few weeks, as Canadians we have to question whether that is in fact the case. Just yesterday a very important minister, the minister of defence, had to be toasted by the Prime Minister because he had lost all credibility and the ability to act on behalf of Canadians.
We had other ministers who had to be moved out of a place where they were clearly not performing up to snuff.
If the government wants to give this kind of power to ministers, then it has to be and can only be on the basis that these ministers have performed in a way that would allow Canadians to have that level of trust in the ministers.
I would argue, and unfortunately I think most Canadians would agree, that we have not seen that level of competence, trustworthiness, gravitas and ability on the part of our ministers that would allow us to give them that kind of authority.
The second problem with giving ministers that kind of authority is that it is too wide open. If we are going to give people unchecked power, then we should at the very least define the circumstances and the kind of framework around the exercise of that power. The bill does not even attempt to say under what kind of circumstances. Ministers would be able to do whatever they wanted to do without consulting even their cabinet colleagues.
One might argue that in an emergency someone might need to do that. That is all well and good but there should be some attempt to categorize, define or put forward a guideline whereby a minister could act unilaterally.
It is unbelievable that a bill would just say that a minister can do whatever he or she wants without even suggesting when this might be appropriate.
I would say that even ministers would want to see some kind of guideline to guide and assist them and their advisers as to when they should leap into the breach without talking to anyone and when they should take a few minutes to consult.
For parliament to just throw this authority on the back of a particular minister without giving him or her any kind of guideline, assistance or advice as to when this would be appropriate, is really an abdication of parliamentary duty.
The third problem I see with this kind of unchecked power is that there is no suggestion of the kind of resources that can be deployed by a particular minister. If the minister deploys certain resources, such as people, laws, rules or whatever else is available to the minister, he or she will need to communicate this to the people in his or her department and to other departments because no department ever acts alone. If the minister consults and communicates with all the players in his or her decision, why would he or she not take time, and why would other senior people who are elected and who have senior responsibility not be brought into the loop? No one has suggested why that could not be done.
If I or you, Mr. Speaker, were a minister I am sure that before we took a unilateral, strong, immediate action, we would at least obtain some input from the most senior, thoughtful, respected, and knowledgeable people that we could find.
It seems to me that the whole premise of the power that is being given in the bill simply does not make sense. It flies in the face of what a reasonable, thoughtful, competent person would want to do.
It seems to me that allowing ministers to do whatever they want is very open-ended. It does not make sense. It opens up the system to improper activities. It is another symptom of the federal government simply saying that it will do whatever it wants. We are not to question what it does because it is sure it has the best interests of the country at heart.
I do not think Canadians are buying that. I do not think it will give us good results. I do not think it would really serve to protects us effectively. I would say to members of the House that the matter needs to be dealt with before we put this law into place.