Debates of May 27th, 2013

Bill C-48 — Time Allocation Motion

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why it is important that we pass this legislation and soon, because it does date back so long.

We have applauded the Office of the Auditor General for its report on this issue and its success in highlighting the need for action both from government and from Parliament. The Auditor General made a series of recommendations to help deal with this issue going forward, and we agree with each of those recommendations.

For instance, the Auditor General recommended that the Department of Finance use an integrated and consistent process for reporting, tracking and prioritizing all technical issues for possible legislative amendment. We agreed and moved to consolidate the Department of Finance's system to ensure technical issues would be documented and catalogued consistently and that the system would be maintained and kept up to date.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of National Revenue herself has said, this legislation has been 10 years in the making.

The NDP has not been opposing this legislation for 10 years. This delay is where the whole problem of the backlog comes from. The government has obviously not been very serious about following up on the implementation of tax legislation and drafting and passing new legislation. We are not the only ones saying so. For 10 years now, all stakeholders have been calling for more rigorous management of tax legislation.

Therefore I would like to ask the government representative and Minister of National Revenue how combining all this in one bill and hastily voting on it is going to protect us from the mistakes that have been plaguing this legislation for 10 years.

Rather than breaking up this bill, taking the time to consider it more thoroughly and ensuring that we will never again have to deal with a 10-year delay, the government is going full steam ahead with a single bill.

How can all these problems possibly be addressed by this—please excuse my language—last-minute bullshit?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, all these amendments are currently being used in our tax system and that is why it is important they be enshrined in legislation as soon as possible. Most of what is in this technical tax bill has been discussed at length with the professional organizations.

I also want to add that in the Auditor General's report, he also recommended the Department of Finance regularly develop and release draft technical amendments, including those that arose from comfort letters, so taxpayers and tax practitioners would know what change would be made and could provide input. Again, we have agreed with that and we are formally committed to bringing technical amendments packages forward for consideration where appropriate, notwithstanding the fact that the prior technical amendments had not yet been adopted by Parliament.

In fact, this past December, the Department of Finance released a package of draft legislative proposals for public comment relating to a number of technical tax changes.

We know we have to do a better job going forward and a more consistent job so that we do not end up with very large bills like this, which has been a backlog for the last 10 years.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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 Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #696

Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I declare the motion carried.

[For continuation of proceedings see part B]

[Continuation of proceedings from part A]

Bill C-54—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder), not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the Bill; and

that, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in the debate.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Gatineau.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I should be thanking anyone. No more than an hour ago, I was rising in response to the 34th time allocation motion. Now here we are with another time allocation motion for Bill C-54.

I will not repeat what I said about Bill C-48. However, in the words of Captain Haddock “ten thousand thundering typhoons” that is quite the gang of “bashi-bazouk” across the way.

As far as Bill C-48 is concerned, I understood from the minister that it was extremely technical aspects that have been backlogged for over 10 years. Anyone who has read Bill C-54 knows that it is highly contested by experts in the field. I am talking about the Canadian Psychiatric Association and the Canadian Forensic Mental Health Network. Many people are questioning Bill C-54.

It is highly likely that the bill will ultimately pass, but we are only at second reading stage. The government is toying with extremely complex concepts having to do with mental disorders and being not criminally responsible. I think that 11 people at most have spoken on the subject, and the government is moving a time allocation motion.

I would like the Minister of Justice to say a few words about this to explain why the government thinks it is necessary to move a time allocation motion at this stage, when there has been no evidence of dilatory practice. I think that everyone has the right to speak to—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. Minister of Justice.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her interest in this area and thank her for the question.

We introduced the bill, as members know, quite some time ago. I believe that the bill has been well received. Certainly my colleagues, victims groups and other individuals have had a look at this and were quite impressed by it.

Again, it has been some time since this whole area was updated. That being said, we have introduced the bill for second reading. The bill has been debated. The House leader, in his motion that we just heard, is going to allow another five hours. This is still at the second reading debate. Then—I think the hon. member would agree with me—we get this into committee and we hear from individuals who want to make comment on it. This is all for the good. We will get the bill into committee. We are not even at the third reading stage of the bill yet. So, again, there is quite a bit of discussion, quite a bit of analysis, but I think there has been a fair amount up to this point already.

As I say, I am generally pleased with all the comments we have received. The good thing is there is going to more debate, more analysis of this, and it is going to a committee. I look forward to hearing the witnesses who will be appearing at that time.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the debate is not about this particular bill. The debate should be about the behaviour of the Conservative/Reform government.

There is a genuine lack of respect for due process. The current government, more than any other government before it, continues to use time allocation as a way in which to limit debate on important issues that are here and need to be debated. It is not appropriate. It is not accountable.

This is from the same government in which the Prime Minister goes into hiding when his Prime Minister's Office is being held up to question.

It is not appropriate behaviour. We are calling upon the government to do the right thing: to show and demonstrate some respect for this institution; to show some respect in terms of public accountability and the types of things that are supposed to be taking place inside this chamber.

My question for the minister is this. When is the government, the Conservative/Reform party, going to give the respect that is necessary for this chamber to be able to proceed into the future with dignity?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, no party in the history of this country has had more respect for Parliament and its institutions than the Conservative Party. Do not take my word it. Ask any of the individuals here in the house. They will say the same thing, that we have a long record, a long history of that.

I have to say the government House leader—I am familiar with that role; I was the government House leader back in 2006—has great respect—

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Huge, even.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thanks very much for that.

Again, Mr. Speaker, he has great respect for the institution of Parliament. He allows debate on all of these things.

However, we have to continue to move forward. The Canadian public is expecting us to move forward. These are important pieces of legislation.

The Liberals say this is not about this bill. Of course it is about this bill. This is better protecting Canadians, standing up for victims in this country. That is what this party is all about. We have made that a priority. That is exactly what we are doing, and that is exactly what we are going to continue to do.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for bringing forward government legislation like this, government legislation we called for when we were in opposition, government legislation that would enhance victims' rights. I remember that as the official opposition, we talked about the protection of society being the guiding principle. It is here in this legislation. The high-risk offender designation is also included in this legislation.

Concerns have been expressed about the potential for day passes or even longer passes, in some cases. Mentally disordered accused could be granted out-of-hospital passes. These are people accused under the jurisdiction of review boards who may pose a danger to society. In at least one recent case, such an unescorted absence from the hospital led to the killing of an innocent victim.

Could the minister please explain to the House how the bill aims to prevent such tragic incidents from occurring in the future?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have that question. That question is about this legislation. That question is about what we are trying to do here.

One of the important changes we would make with this legislation would be to make it very clear that the protection of the public is paramount. That would be the very first consideration, the paramount consideration, when review boards were looking at this.

The member is alluding, as well, to the fact that we have a whole new designation, the high-risk offender designation. We are going to get out of the business, as it were, of escorted passes for individuals who get this designation. This designation is for a small group of highly dangerous individuals who have been designated so by the courts. They will be detained within the institution for their protection and for the public's protection unless the procedures outlined in the bill are followed.

I hear what the hon. member is saying. This is a definite improvement, and that is why I think the bill has been so well received.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the previous member's comments revealed exactly the reason we need to have an open debate on these bills. We see bill after bill brought forward by the government being overturned by the courts, generally speaking because of a charter challenge.

For as long as I am still in this place, we will still have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is absolutely critical, when the government comes forward with legislation, that it reviews the laws to make sure they adhere to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The reason to have open debate when we bring forward legislation is to make sure that we are balancing those interests. The last thing we want is to have laws that have the best of intentions but are not properly drafted and are thrown out when they finally come before the courts. That is all the more reason to have full debate in the House.

There has been occasion after occasion when we have found errors in a law, even though we have agreed with the intent of the law, generally speaking, and have tabled amendments. That is exactly why we have debate in the House of Commons.