Debates of March 7th, 2012

Bill C-10—Time Allocation Motion

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here is what I have to say about the time allocation motion. At present, some amendments have been made to this bill. Canadians have been paying very close attention to this bill, no matter which way they lean. We are not talking about a bill that we are passing as is, but rather an amended bill. No matter which way they lean, Canadians want to know what impact these amendments will have. I think we need to take the time to discuss this.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is incorrect.

This bill has been before this Parliament for quite some time. I would suggest that the NDP always wants to talk about procedure. We want to talk about substance. We want to talk about what is in the bill.

The bill is very clear. It better protects victims of terrorism. It goes after people who are in the child pornography business. It goes after drug dealers. That is the substance of the bill. That is what I would hope hon. members of this House would concentrate on rather than filibustering, trying to adjourn the House, or using some other procedural tactic.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, legal scholars across this country and the Canadian Bar Association have very serious concerns about the constitutionality of many aspects of this bill.

The member for Mount Royal has asked the minister whether he will table the legal opinions with respect to its constitutionality. I am not sure we have an answer. I will ask the question again.

Will the minister please table the opinions with respect to the constitutionality of the provisions within Bill C-10?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the House that this legislation received the due diligence of the Department of Justice to make sure it complies with all aspects of the Constitution, including the Canadian Bill of Rights, going right back to the British North America Act to make sure that this is within federal jurisdiction.

I would say to the hon. member that I appreciate the individuals he referred to. I listen to a lot of people. I listen to scholars and lawyers. I listen to law enforcement agents and victims as well.

I was with Sheldon Kennedy in Toronto today. He was urging the passage of the bill because he himself has been a victim. I have heard from so many victims. They want to make sure that their thoughts and concerns are heard and are reflected in the legislation of this country. I have been only too happy to assure them that this is exactly what the bill does.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very dissatisfied with this gag order, the seventeenth of its kind. When the first iteration of Bill C-10 was introduced in the House of Commons, we debated it. Then the government wanted to move things along so quickly that very serious mistakes in this bill had to be corrected by the Senate at the last minute.

This government's lack of respect for Canadians and for the members of Parliament is unbelievable. Both sides of the House are here to debate bills and improve them. Obviously, the NDP is dissatisfied and, personally, I am angry about these gag orders. This Parliament is supposed to be democratic but such is no longer the case. The Conservatives need to change their behaviour.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that he is upset. Very often I meet with victims groups and they are upset when they believe that their thoughts, concerns and priorities are not being met or heard. I have assured victims groups that they have elected a government that listens to them and that their concerns are a priority for this government.

We were very clear in the election. We did not say if there were procedural problems we would not proceed with their concerns. We never said that. Hon. members can say that they do not like the procedure, but these bills have been debated off and on for four years. They do the right thing by victims. I suggest to the hon. member that he do the right thing for victims today. He should join with us and support this important piece of legislation.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, most of the members who are asking questions today did not hear any of that evidence. I did hear the evidence. I heard overwhelmingly from victims who stand up for this legislation.

What is interesting is that the only time this bill was time limited in committee was on a motion moved by the NDP critic. Clearly those members must have a different idea today than they did before.

I ask the minister, who stood up for victims during committee? What did the victims of crime overwhelmingly say about Bill C-10?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been very appreciative over the years that victims groups and individuals have come forward and have been so supportive of the legislation we have introduced in Parliament.

I remember when we were getting rid of the faint hope clause, a reporter asked me a valid question. She asked if we thought people would stop committing murder because they would not have the availability of an early parole date at 15 years. I said I had no idea what would possess somebody to commit premeditated murder but I knew it would reduce victimization. Victims would tell me that they were victimized all over again when the 15 years rolled around, and then 17 years, and 19 years. It is reducing victimization. That is what has been a priority for this government and it will continue to be a priority in the future.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could comment on the comments that were made by David Daubney, a former member of Parliament who sat in caucus with the minister in Mr. Mulroney's government. Mr. Daubney is a former director of the criminal law policy section at Justice Canada. Several days after terminating his career, Mr. Daubney said to the minister that he did not agree with this bill, that fear was at the basis of much of these measures, and he did not agree that it was constitutional.

For the third time, would the minister respond to the direct question: Will he table the evidence in the House of Commons today to substantiate that he has proof that this bill is constitutional?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been very clear that the bill complies with all aspects of the Canadian Constitution, whether it be the charter, whether it be the Canadian Bill of Rights. Mr. Diefenbaker introduced that important piece of legislation in this chamber. I am completely confident that the bill meets all the constitutional requirements.

There will be those who disagree with what we are doing, but I take heart from all those who work on the front lines, people in law enforcement, ordinary Canadians and victims, who overwhelmingly say again and again, “You are on the right track. Keep it up. Do the right thing for us and for Canada”.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is odd. Earlier, I heard the hon. member saying that this bill would definitely have an impact on victims but that he did not really know if it would have an impact on criminals. I have a great deal of respect for victims, and I do not really think I have to say that, because it is so obvious. However, I am wondering why the hon. member would want to pass a bill when we do not know what effect it will have on criminals. That seems a bit illogical for a society that supports rehabilitation. I would like the hon. member to elaborate a bit on this.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear. This will have an impact on criminals. There is no question about that. This will have a great effect on those individuals who think it is a good idea to bring drugs into Canada and people who like to get into the child porn business, because if they get charged under this piece of legislation, they are looking at jail time.

The hon. member asked what impact it would have on criminals. I hope it has a great impact. I hope it encourages people to stay away from that business and not get involved in those kinds of activities, because there are serious consequences for getting involved in those kinds of activities.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues should know that when I first began practising law I dealt with compensation for victims of crime. I know a great deal about victims of crime.

First and foremost, they want the people who attacked them to be arrested. After that comes punishment. They want justice. But what they want most of all is to end impunity for criminals, not to impose exemplary sentences. In that regard, I would point out that putting a rope in every inmate's cell is not necessarily what victims have called for.

The Minister of Justice informed us that these laws are constitutional. However, a few weeks ago we were advised of a legal decision indicating that the omnibus bill's provisions on firearms possession were considered cruel and unusual punishment. Is that what we can hope for from Bill C-10 over the next three years, that judges will dismantle it piece by piece?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may think it is cruel punishment to have somebody, who is part of organized crime, bringing in drugs, such as Ecstacy, to this country, which many times has the effect of killing people, and those individuals are only looking at a year or two years in jail. It is up to the courts and we provide the guidelines.

However, for people who sexually exploit children to be looking at jail time, the member may think that is cruel and unusual punishment.

I think I speak for most Canadians when I say that this is on the right track. The people who bring in Ecstacy for the purposes of killing people in this country should meet certain penalties, which is exactly what the bill delivers.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice and people on that side of the House like to talk a lot about victims. In fact, they like to portray themselves as the only ones who do actually care about victims. We on this side of the House also actually care about victims.

Members of the government made a big deal of the fact that they created an ombudsman for victims. Would the minister very briefly tell us what recommendations from the ombudsman for victims they have implemented to show that they really do care about victims.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the whole Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime was created by this government. All the improvements that we have made to the victims fund, all the investments that we have made in that, are all in support of victims in this country.

The hon. member says that we like to talk about victims. The reason for that is that we stand up for victims in this country. We make their priority our priority. I am very proud to stand with a group of individuals who have made victims rights a priority. That is exactly what we will continue to do.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was very concerned when I heard the Minister of Justice make a comment earlier that he is tired of hearing from this side of the House when we have concerns with procedure in the House and that that side of the House prefers to deal with substance.

He seems to speaking at odds to his own leader, the Prime Minister of Canada, who only a month ago sat down with the first nations of Canada and agreed to move forward in a new partnership, nation to nation, a new way of procedure, and undertook that,from here on in, in all bills, all procedures and all initiatives by the Government of Canada, the Conservatives would not move forward unless they consulted in advance and accommodated the rights and interests of first nation peoples.

We have heard from the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations and we have heard from many first nations complaining that this bill would simply incarcerate more first nations people who are already being prejudicially treated. What does the minister have to say in response to that?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill focuses on criminal activity.

I want to be very clear when I talk about the whole issue of procedure. What I get from the NDP members, on a day when we are discussing this very important legislation, is that they want to adjourn the House and go home. I guess I do have a few problems with that.

This bill is very important. I stood with Sheldon Kennedy, a man who had been victimized. I do not want to have to go back and tell him that the NDP members wanted to adjourn, that they did not want to talk about the bill today and that they wanted to go home. I find that completely unacceptable.

Yes, I do want to discuss these important pieces of legislation and that is exactly what we will do.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what we constantly hear from the other side is how the legislation would deal with that poor person who may be growing a few marijuana plants in the basement and that this is prejudicial to him or her. Perhaps the minister could re-explain to the members on the opposite side of the House how this legislation targets those who traffic in drugs.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Brampton West for all the support that he has given us on our crime legislation. I and everyone in the government are very appreciative. Contrary to what some of our critics would like to say about the bill, which is completely incorrect, the bill goes after drug traffickers.

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

From Panama.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

You bet, from Panama. The people who bring drugs into this country. Those people who bring drugs into this country are looking at mandatory jail time. The bill goes after drug traffickers and we have been very careful.

I appreciate that some of our critics did not get a chance to read the bill but the bill talks about drug traffickers and that is what would do and that is why this country needs this strong legislation.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must acknowledge that the Minister of Justice is an expert in hyperbole. Unfortunately, that does not make the legal principles of his bill any more palatable.

All committee members, including myself, looked at this huge bill. Once again, it has 109 pages of text and affects nine laws. A number of the clauses have never been examined by the House or by all members of the House.

The Conservatives claim, falsely to my mind, that it has been discussed for hours and hours. The only thing I can say to the House is that we have discussed the closure motions at length. I have never had to rise so often for such a reason for a large bill like this.

However, the adjournment motion may have been moved in response to the arrogance of a minister who strutted around the whole day celebrating in advance because his bill would finally pass today. It is not the minister—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. We have enough time for an answer.

The hon. Minister of Justice.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill and its components have been before Parliament. It has been debated and it has been thoroughly analyzed. The hon. member says that she wants meaningful debate. How are we supposed to feel when we wanted to debate the bill and the government House leader then tells me that the NDP members want to adjourn the House. I am not making this up. This is what they did this afternoon. The asked to adjourn the House, to go home and to not discuss these issues.

What am I supposed to think? I am here for the victims of crime and I am telling them that we are moving forward on this. What am I supposed to tell them, that we are taking the day off because the NDP is in a snit about something and wants to adjourn the House? That is the question I have to ask the NDP members. Would they explain that, please? If they are so interested in debating these issues, why would they want to adjourn the House?