Debates of Sept. 25th, 2014

Bill C-36--Time Allocation Motion

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is the usual feigned outrage from the member. I will tell her what I have already said to the House, which is that we believe this legislation is constitutional and is charter-proof, of course. We believe the legislation answers the questions that were put forward and the issues that were identified quite clearly by the majority in Bedford. It was a decision that put the government in a position where we had to respond with this bill.

We have done extensive consultation. We have been engaged in an active and genuine outreach to arrive at this place. We do rely on the very capable advice coming from lawyers within the Department of Justice. Quite frankly, I am surprised that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands would be so critical and so doubting of the advice coming from professional public servants, lawyers, and members of a fraternity of which she is also a member, and that she would suggest that this advice was somehow not being followed by the Department of Justice.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is actually for the government House leader.

The government House leader has now stood in his place and introduced time allocation more than any other House leader in the history of this Parliament, primarily because no other prime minister in the history of Canada has introduced closure more. That is what time allocation is, a form of closure, limiting debate on important pieces of legislation, saying that the House of Commons will not allow members of Parliament, who want to get engaged in a debate, the opportunity to participate in that debate.

The Conservatives continuously abuse, or they have a genuine lack of respect for, due process inside the House of Commons.

My question to the government House leader is this. Why does the government House leader feel that using time allocation is the only way the government, this majority Reform/Conservative government, has of passing legislation? Whatever happened to good faith negotiating with opposition House leaders so that we can get an orderly passing of a legislative agenda? That is the way it used to be; that is the way it should be.

No government in the history—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. The hon. Minister of Justice.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am not the government House leader. I am not privy to those discussions that take place when it comes to the legislative agenda.

The member is relatively new to this House and perhaps was not here in previous parliaments when the Liberal Party was in government. I was there. I sat where he is sitting today on the opposition benches and saw this method to move legislative forward quite frequently used by his party when it was in government. There is an element of hypocrisy in throwing the allegation that we are the only government that has ever used this method to move legislation through.

However, I come back to the principle of why I believe it is necessary to do so, and that is to put in place a legislative framework within the Criminal Code that will in fact protect people, vulnerable people, individuals who find themselves caught in this terrible dilemma of being in the sex trade where other opportunities, if they were afforded to them, would give them a much safer, healthier place to be.

That is what I think is most important about the bill. It is coupled with programs that will in fact help people to exit prostitution, afford them educational opportunities, training opportunities, housing, child care, the type of support that we believe leads to a healthier society, and certainly for those individuals it is an attempt to bring them to a much better life.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the issue on which the people who are watching need to stay focused is that legislation dealing with prostitution is a very serious issue that needs to be put forward in a manner that would pass the constitutional requirements of this country.

We have a Minister of Justice who announced that the debate will be cut of at a time when numerous legal experts have questioned the constitutionality of this legislation. Parliament is being asked to go along with the Potemkin democratic charade that we see with this House, where the people who are supposed to make legislation are being pushed to the side and the legislation forced through when all the signs are showing that this will fail once again at the Supreme Court.

It comes down to the credibility of the government and the Minister of Justice, who time and time again have thought that the only solution for laws in this country is to butt heads with the Supreme Court and lose, time and time again. If we are to deal with legislation in this country, we have a responsibility to do it properly through the House of Commons so that we ensure that all due diligence is done.

All the language and insults that we have been hearing from the Minister of Justice against people who are speaking up on this will not change that fact. If it will not meet the constitutional requirements, then we are wasting our time in the House of Commons with this legislation.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite may be a semi-talented musician; but I am not sure about his acting ability. This member accuses people of insults, but he is the daily court jester in that regard.

The reality is that the bill—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay on a point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister have to demean the House with his childish stunts, really, when we are talking about the constitutionality of legislation? It is pitiful.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I would invite the member to indicate where there is a point of order in that commentary.

The hon. Minister of Justice may continue. He has about 30 seconds.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, this is a very serious issue where vulnerable people are at risk. That is the reason we are moving post-haste to bring this legislation to fruition, so that the Criminal Code would afford those protections. It would allow not only those who find themselves in prostitution but those who support them to move forward in a way that will improve their lives.

That is why we are moving in this direction. We have had numerous debates. We had the opportunity at the committee to hear from the community and individuals, those most affected, in bringing forward their voice in a meaningful way.

As far as the constitutionality goes, we have an obligation that we are not going to shirk in the government with respect to ensuring that those protections are there. We, of course, take expert advice from the Department of Justice. We have officials there who are very well versed in the application of the charter. I would certainly rely on that advice in suggesting that this legislation is constitutionally sound.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

There is a point of order from the member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to cite O'Brien and Bosc, because this has been a repeated problem. The member for Timmins—James Bay just cited it, as did the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Under “Unparliamentary Language” on page 618, it says very clearly that personal attacks are “not in order” in the House of Commons. The Minister of Justice has responded to every question with a personal attack, and I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you enforce what are clear guidelines that personal attacks of the nature that the Minister of Justice seems to be throwing around are simply inappropriate for the House of Commons, particularly in a matter of such seriousness as the bill we are discussing.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I thank the member for the intervention. I have to say that the issue is when it becomes a personal attack. Certainly the language that has been used by the minister is not unparliamentary. Whether it is a personal attack is always a question of the context in which we hear it.

I would ask all sides in the House to be more careful with that type of approach, but I do not see at this stage that the minister has crossed the line.

Resuming questions and comments, the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, wanting to judicialize a social problem is pretty weak. I have to wonder if the Conservatives thought about what it will cost society if this has to go before the Supreme Court again.

I would like to ask the minister if impact studies were done on how the justice system will be affected if this bill passes and becomes law, because if it works, we presume that hundreds, if not thousands of sex workers and their clients will wind up before the courts.

Does the minister have any idea what the social cost will be and how clogged up the legal system could become if all these people have a criminal record? Did he study that issue?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Of course, Mr. Speaker, that is a legitimate question.

What we have obviously seen through this legislation is a situation where prostitution in an asymmetrical way would become illegal for the very first time, the act of prostitution and the purchasing of sexual services. We believe that this would put into the hands of the police the ability to enforce the law to protect those vulnerable persons who are drawn into this life.

This is an approach that has been taken in other jurisdictions. We have looked, in particular, at many of the Nordic countries. Interestingly, other countries, including France and parts of the United States, are pursuing this ongoing social problem, as he said, in a similar fashion.

We obviously expect that there will be challenges. There will be opportunities for the courts to interpret this legislation, as they have. We are, in fact, responding to the Supreme Court decision.

To those who suggest that we should go back to the courts in a proactive way and somehow consult them again, I would suggest that it would leave people more vulnerable, in the void and absence of a Criminal Code section that would protect people. That would take time and it would only result in further advice that we have already received from the court in the Bedford decision.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the tone coming from the opposite side of the House is deeply disturbing. MPs are raising legitimate issues with regard to the time allocation on Bill C-36. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands posed a question to the minister, but the minister failed to respond directly to the request from the MP for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

The minister continues to cite that the Department of Justice has reviewed the current legislation and continues to assure the House that it is constitutional. Once again I ask the minister if he will table the opinion of the Department of Justice on the constitutionality of this bill, given the number of people who have raised very serious concerns that this bill may well face another court challenge?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

I have answered that question repeatedly, Mr. Speaker, both here and in committee. The reality is that we receive advice from the Department of Justice on the constitutionality and charter compliance of every bill. This is done routinely.

We receive advice across departments with regard to the constitutionality of legislation. It is a routine procedure. We have very capable lawyers within the Department of Justice, and I am surprised that members opposite are in essence casting aspersions on that advice and suggesting that somehow we as a government would misinterpret that advice or would somehow obscure the advice that we are getting.

The members opposite continue to shout. It is fine for them to insult the government or insult me in their questions; I accept that. It is part of the exchange. They are continuing to chirp away. That is fine. They are perfectly within their right in doing so, but this is really a serious debate. They should focus on serious questions and serious issues that matter to Canadians.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the reason that the members on this side of the House continue to seek legal opinions is that there is a glaring inconsistency between what the minister says about the constitutionality of the bill and what was said by virtually all other legal witnesses who testified at committee. It seems as though the only ones that hold a view consistent with the minister's are those on the payroll of the Department of Justice, yet we are not allowed to see their opinions.

My question relates to the $175,000 Ipsos Reid survey that was withheld from the justice committee. Given that parliamentarians have never heard a witness testify with respect to this poll, because it was withheld, and given that officials within the minister's department said that the poll contained useful information in crafting the bill, does the minister think it is fair to limit debate in the House to two more days when we have a piece of useful information that has never been examined by the committee?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is just factually incorrect, again, from the member for Charlottetown. That poll was released, in fact, and that information was made available at the statutory release time. I know the member may not want to accept that, but those are the rules that were in place when his party was in government and those are the rules that we respect with the release of public data information.

The information has been released, it is in the public realm, it was available to members of the committee to examine, and it was but part of the information that we relied on. The polling data information, in fact, contained far more than just specific information. In included public consultation on the subject of prostitution in the Bedford decision. It went across an array of other subject matter.

For the member opposite to try to leave the impression that the information was withheld, that it was not examined by members of the committee is just untrue.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to use an analogy. During the Crimean War, there was a cavalry charge called the charge of the light brigade. It was a beautiful charge. Never had anyone seen such excellent horsemen charge so quickly. It was an exemplary deployment. Unfortunately, the Russians were ready for the English, who were slaughtered.

That is basically what we have here. The bill's intent—to protect people from crime, abuse and human trafficking—may be laudable, but unfortunately, as soon as it enters into force, it will be challenged, and probably successfully. That is the problem. I am afraid that if the government cuts off debate once again, objective criticism will not be heard and the legislation will be headed towards defeat once again. Unfortunately, this defeat means that the people we want to protect will not be protected. That is probably this bill's main weakness.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. Minister of Justice has one minute to reply.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker,

Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward

I know what the member is trying to do in drawing this analogy, but the truth is that the bill has been examined. It has been before committee, both in the House and the Senate. It has received constitutional examination. We have the wisdom of the court in the Bedford decision. We had 3,100 participants in an online consultation. We heard from some 90 experts with respect to the bill itself. I took part in round tables at which I heard directly from individuals. We have had the benefit of debate in the House.

Therefore, I am surprised by members opposite suggesting that we should continually abdicate our responsibility and go back to the courts again. They would have us refer another question to the courts rather than to the duly elected, democratically elected body that is obligated to properly examine legislation and make good decisions.

We are not going to simply defer that responsibility to the courts. We are going to proceed with thoughtful, productive legislation. That is what we have before the Parliament of Canada today.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order. It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.