Mr. Speaker, I will resume where we left off before question period today.
The bill before us today could violate the fundamental rights enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is why I am opposed to the bill.
With respect to investigative hearings, the bill would allow for someone who is charged to be required to attend an examination and present evidence. This is certainly not a court in the traditional sense. The answers given during such a hearing cannot be used against the individual. However, the individual must attend and answer questions.
It is not standard practice for a judge to examine the so-called accused. This goes against Canada's legal principles. The judge must not play this role. Why would we create such a situation and force the judge to do so?
We must avoid violating the fundamental principles of justice. That is exactly why we insist that the judge remain neutral. But this bill would have the judge play the role of prosecutor. That goes completely against legal principles that have existed for hundreds of years.
I would also like to talk about recognizance with conditions. We are talking about preventive detention, without any charges. In other words, a person can be detained for up to one year without ever being charged. Once again, we need to really ask ourselves whether we live in a free and democratic society. Can someone really be detained for one year without any charges? Frankly, this is an outrage that violates the fundamental rights upheld in this country. It is completely unacceptable. In a free and democratic society, I would like to think that any reasonable judge would ignore this legislation.
Unfortunately, a bill that is simply nonsense and unconstitutional is being introduced in the House. This is a waste of our time and an insult to Canadians.
We already have legislative measures to deal with terrorist activities in Canada. I invite the members of the House to read the Criminal Code, which includes many items already dedicated to the matter, including for instance, section 83 onward.
Once again, I will ask the same question I asked earlier this morning: what has changed in Canada to justify this crackdown regarding charges of terrorism?
Parts of the Criminal Code already deal with this issue. The government is creating new parts that, in my opinion, will be inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Why not start with prevention?
Again, the government's approach is to deal with things after the fact. However, prevention would help avoid a situation or circumstances in which terrorism could threaten Canada.
In its 2012 budget, the Government of Canada cut $688 million from Public Safety Canada's budget, or 10% of its budget, which affected 1,300 Canada Border Services Agency officers. In total, 1,300 jobs were lost.
Again, it is a matter of prevention. In this case, prevention eliminates the need to get tough later.
That being said, there is no evidence of there ever having been any need to invoke our country's anti-terrorism laws. There have been very few opportunities to invoke our anti-terrorism laws that are currently in the Criminal Code, let alone the laws that were quickly passed following the events of September 11, 2001, which were in effect from 2001 to 2006. We do not need these laws because we already have all the tools we need. In the same breath, the Conservatives insist on cutting budgets and thereby putting the Canadian public at risk.
Why not focus on prevention? I would truly like to understand the Conservatives. Often, they come up with bills for the optics of it all, when in reality they are making such extensive budget cuts that it is becoming impossible to protect the Canadian public. Let them introduce a meaningful bill that truly addresses the problem instead of this farce from the Senate.