Madam Speaker, we can hear the jackboots marching. A time allocation measure has been brought in on Bill C-3 and there is absolutely no good reason for it. Indeed, we did not have a situation where the opposition was trying to run up as many members as possible to speak to this bill. This was clearly a matter of the bill being earnestly debated because we saw honest problems with it.
I will tell the House how many times the government has brought in time allocation and I will point out how useless this last measure was. In the 35th Parliament some sort of restriction was brought in, either time allocation or closure, 35 times. In the last Parliament there were 32 time allocation motions and three closure motions, which brings the total to 35, which matches the 35th Parliament.
In the first year of the 36th Parliament there have been seven time allocation motions. That means that this government has brought in either time allocation or closure 42 times since it took office in 1993. There have been 39 time allocation motions and three closure motions. There was absolutely no good reason for it. The government is shutting down honest debate.
When I hear the comments of people with regard to this bill I think of my seatmate. He was a member of the RCMP who has said that the police in this country should be able to effect these tools immediately. He says that they should not have to have a loophole or a restriction with regard to the use of some of this technology.
He brings forward a legitimate complaint, something that I know he has brought forward in committee a number of times. I know that his concerns are absolutely legitimate. I do not question anything he has to say with regard to this because I know that his interests are at the heart of the Canadian public.
The member for Langley—Abbotsford talked about the people in his riding who are suffering as a result of the seven penitentiaries that are within a half hour drive of his riding. He talked about honest, legitimate concerns that he has.
What do people across the way talk about? They talk about what the bar associations and the lawyers want.
The opposition is not running on and on about this. All we wanted to ensure was that there was legitimate debate on this bill. Everything I heard this morning brought forward by all opposition parties were legitimate suggestions to improve this legislation. It is a step in the right direction but it needs to be better. The idea to bring in time allocation on something like this is wrong.
Government members need to hear the questions that are important when we consider things like time allocation, restricting debate, or when we pass any piece of legislation.
What fruit will it bear? What fruit does it bear when there is not a long list of people who want to run on with the debate, when perfectly legitimate points are being made with regard to Bill C-3 and the DNA data bank? What type of fruit does it bear when they try to restrict debate? They bring forward closure. They end debate. How does that serve the Canadian public? How does that improve the legislation?
It is our job as the official opposition to question the government and to try to improve legislation. Forty-two times since the government was elected in 1993 it has brought in time allocation and closure to restrict our freedom of speech, to restrict our ability to constructively criticize government legislation and to make it better.
It fits in with what it did at the APEC conference in Vancouver. It likes to restrict freedom of speech. It is certainly doing it to members of parliament and to the opposition in the House today.
Who wants it? Who wants some of these things with regard to time allocation? Who does it serve? Nobody but the government. It is a public relations exercise to try to quell the debate on an issue, to try to silence it.
In terms of Bill C-3, maybe it serves the bar associations or the odd lawyer or two who happen to feel they are going to get more money or more cases from this. It certainly does not help the average citizen and the victims of crime. They do not want it. The Canadian taxpayers do not want it.
Who will slip through the cracks as a result of some of these things? That is another fundamental question. For example, the people who have been assaulted once, if they have been assaulted by somebody who has committed only one rape or one murder. Those are the types of people who are going to suffer. There are a lot of people out there who are included in that category of victims. By improving the legislation we would be able to address those things.
The government does not want to hear that. It wants to close its ears and stifle the debate. Maybe it feels that it has done its duty, that it has come through with this legislation. Even though there are good and legitimate arguments that the opposition is putting forward to make this legislation better, it wants to ram it through and not take any of those things into consideration.
The victims slip through the cracks. The police officers who want the tools to do the job slip through the cracks. The taxpayers who are being ill-served by this type of thing slip through the cracks. The opposition falls through the cracks as well because our ability to do our job is restricted by these closure and time allocation motions. The press, whose job it is to provide information to the Canadian public, slips through the cracks. Nobody benefits but the government.
Will it solve the problem it intends to address? This legislation is a move in the right direction, but we were trying to make it better than it is. That is our job. All of us in the House have an interest to try to improve the country and make it a better place. Canada is number one in our hearts and concerns and we were trying to make the legislation better than it is. Time allocation and not accepting some of the amendments and suggestions the opposition has made with regard to Bill C-3 does not solve the problem that the legislation can be better. Indeed it brushes it over and tries to rush it through.
Are they attacking a strawman? The government always tosses in a strawman. It says that the opposition, for example, is not addressing real concerns. Real Canadians are victims of crime. They toss a strawman or a red herring into the argument by saying that there may be some potential problem with a constitutional aspect or some sort of suggestion on behalf of a bar association or a group of lawyers that do not happen to like something.
I can guarantee that in a large enough group of lawyers, as a matter of fact two, there will be some disagreements on opinion and if they have enough money to fund it they will continue with the debate for as long as it takes for the money to run dry.
That alone, the whole idea of a red herring or a strawman, is not enough to stifle debate on Bill C-3. I have heard very good arguments on behalf of the opposition side of the House today for why we need further debate and why improvements need to be included in the legislation.
Forty-two times closure and time allocation have been used in the House of Commons since the Liberals took power in 1993. It is a shame that it has happened on something like Bill C-3 because there was absolutely no justification for it. The types of arguments that are being put forward by the opposition were merely to improve the legislation to make it a better piece of work.