Debates of May 27th, 2013

Bill C-54—Time Allocation Motion

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I completely disagree with the hon. member that all of these bills are being overturned. That is not the case. We are in court defending all of these when the matter arises, and we have been very successful.

What we are proposing, not just with this bill but with all of our criminal justice legislative agenda, are very reasonable pieces of legislation that would do the great thing, which is better protect victims in this country. Sometimes it is to increase justice efficiency to better protect victims and to make sure that individuals who are found guilty are held accountable.

We have a great record in terms of bills being sustained, because all of them get proper analysis before they are introduced in court so that they comply with the charter and with John Diefenbaker's Canadian Bill of Rights. We want to make sure that all of them are compliant with those, and all of them are. I am very confident that they will sustain any future challenge.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what the minister is doing is exactly what we want to do—that is, discuss the content of the bill. However, the content of the bill is not the current order of business. The current order of business is the fact that the debate is being cut short.

This is the 34th time the government has done this. For the sake of democracy, the government must give us a chance to discuss this, just as it replies and addresses its comments to its members. It was not speaking to you, Mr. Speaker, but rather to its members. You must have noticed this.

We want to have a debate. The government needs to stop shutting down debate and let us speak. In any case, we plan to support this. The Schizophrenia Society of Canada has asked for more time in order to meet with the minister on this issue. People also want to discuss it, and that is what we want to do.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that we have carefully analyzed this particular piece of legislation, and we have discussed it with groups and individuals for quite some time now. I have met with a number, particularly with victims groups, on what it is they want to see and some of the challenges they have had.

Again, we have had debate here in the House of Commons. As I pointed out to the justice critic for the NDP, the bill has been debated. We are going to have more hours of debate this evening. Then it will go to the committee. They can call witnesses before the committee. This is even before we get back to third reading in the House. We have not even gotten to that. Again, there is plenty of time for debate.

What I will not agree with the NDP on is that we should continue to debate on and on. Again, with respect to our criminal justice legislation, many times the NDP members, to be fair, either completely oppose it and are upfront about that or say that it must be debated ad infinitum and on forever. I disagree with that approach.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to ask the minister if he believes that it is a majority government's prerogative to introduce time allocation motions whenever it wants. I find this to be completely undemocratic behaviour that shows utter contempt for this House, parliamentarians and Canadians.

My question is simple. I would like to hear the minister explain to Canadians why he is introducing this time allocation motion.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked what the prerogatives of a majority government are. I think the prerogative is the same for all governments that are elected, and that is to do and deliver to Canadians what Canadians were promised in the previous election. That is exactly what we have done. We have made it very clear in every election that with respect to our criminal justice legislation, better protection of the public would be a priority.

Every single election we have made that promise. We have been upfront with Canadians about that. The great thing about that is that our support has grown in every single election. More and more Canadians are joining us in every single election and are saying that we are on the right track when we stand up for victims in this country and when we make individuals accountable for the crimes they commit.

I am so grateful to the people of this country who have given us a majority government. I can promise them that we will deliver on exactly what we promised in the last election.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the victims of some convicted individuals who were found not criminally responsible are concerned that inadequate consideration is being given to their safety by review boards when decisions are made regarding mentally disordered accused people.

Victims have also raised concerns about the fact that they may have no way of knowing when an accused is released, maybe into their own communities. They are afraid that they might bump into them on the street or on some other unexpected occasion.

Could the minister please explain how this bill better responds to those kinds of concerns and the needs of the victims?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, victims can currently attend hearings and present victim impact statements when these matters are before the provincial review boards.

We want to go further than that. We want to make it explicit that the safety of victims, first of all, must be considered in the whole process and that individuals who want to be notified if and when these individuals are released or escorted into the community have that ability. It should not come as some sort of surprise if they see these individuals at a restaurant, downtown, at church or some other place where they were not expecting it.

We have to make sure that what we are doing aligns with those people who have been victimized and have done nothing wrong but have found themselves in the middle of this very difficult situation.

A major component of what we are doing is to better protect and illuminate and set out the rights victims have. Again, as I pointed out, it is consistent with what we have been doing with all our criminal legislation.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for the past little while, government members have been asking questions about the content of the bill, which is what we were supposed to debate during the time that was just taken away from us.

This is the second time allocation vote already this afternoon. Apparently, the government is going to give us five hours for second reading, which is not very much considering how important this bill is. If the government truly believed its bill was appropriate and would have a positive effect on victims, it would understand that we need enough time to consider and debate this bill thoroughly.

Does the government really believe that this bill does enough to help victims? Does it believe the bill will achieve the stated objectives? We do not know.

We know how things go in committee with this government. It has a majority, so it will call whatever witnesses it wants, and they will say what it wants to hear. It will limit the number of witnesses the opposition can call. We also expect to see another time allocation motion at third reading.

I have never heard a single group ask the government to adopt motions quickly and undemocratically. How can this government justify systematically acting this way and refusing to listen to the opposition?

We deserve to be heard. After all, the opposition parties in the House represent 60% of Canadians. This government seems to forget that every time it introduces a bill.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is one part on which I actually agree with the hon. member. She said that government MPs have been asking questions on the substance of the bill. That is wonderful. Again, this is the kind of input I have had over the last number of months. Every time I talk with my colleagues, they are worried about this whole issue and are very pleased that we are moving forward on it.

The hon. member said that she has not talked to any groups that are pushing forward with this. I would suggest that she sit down with victims groups. I have said this before to the NDP. If members want to hear an excellent analysis of these different pieces of legislation, I say that they should sit down with victims groups, as I have when I have gone across this country. They will tell you that we are on the right track with these initiatives and that a bill like this better protects victims. It is consistent with all of the other pieces of legislation. If they are looking for groups that like these government bills, I always say to start with victims. That is a good place to start and sometimes to end.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just got it. I just had a total revelation.

The minister does not understand the concept of a time allocation motion. The issue is whether the government is right to move a time allocation motion. This is not the time to debate the substance of the bill.

Perhaps five hours of debate would have been enough, but the government is constantly imposing this way of operating on us here in the House. In the long run, it becomes fairly absurd and undemocratic. That is one reason why we feel it is important to debate the bill a little longer than the five hours allotted.

When the minister introduced his bill—one of the rare times he has done so—he used tons of statistics. However, according to a study in Blacklock's Reporter, they were not even the right statistics. Therefore, it would be good for us to have more time for debate.

In fact, after taking part in the debate myself, I realize that members of the House would be able to ask more questions. If they could, then when we receive the bill in committee, we would be readier to do our job and we would not have to engage again in preliminary debates before being able to discuss the bill in committee.

This is completely undemocratic. While the minister is bragging about being there for victims, in reality he is laying it on thick but not giving them what they want.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with her that for the NDP, these things are always about procedures. I am very pleased with the fact that for government members, it is about the substance. It is about what is in the bills. That is what is important to them.

The member said that we are always pushing through our legislation. The government House leader has been very reasonable in terms of the debate. There has been a lot of debate. I believe that these debates often go until midnight. There is extra time now for members of Parliament to debate. They can argue about the procedure and talk about that forever, if they like, or at least until a vote on this matter.

I am glad so many government members are in the House this evening, because I appreciate the input they have given and their concern in this area. They are on the right track. I can tell them that.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the minister talk about the NDP wanting to talk about procedures when we have a government motion that has been introduced to talk about procedures. We are actually debating the motion the government introduced about time allocation. That is what it is asking us to talk about right now, not the substance of the bill.

It was interesting to hear the minister talk about how his goal was to fulfill the promises that the Conservatives made during that last election campaign, and some of the promises we heard were about openness, transparency and accountability. I am glad to hear the applause from the other side, because it would be wonderful if they actually followed up on those promises about openness, transparency and accountability. I believe in most Canadians' minds that those elements are all included in fulsome debate around legislation that can have profound impact.

The minister mentioned that the Conservatives have had a full study of the bill, yet we have seen other government bills that come before the House that require amendment. That is the purpose of having debate around bills, to have a fulsome study and have witnesses called.

We have seen the Conservatives shut down witness testimony at committee. I wonder if the minister could commit today to allow full debate at committee with a full slate of witnesses who represent both the opposition and the government members.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously committees are in charge of their own agenda. I see my parliamentary secretary here and other members of that committee, and they have done an outstanding job in terms of moving forward on these important pieces of legislation.

The hon. member is right when she said what we talked about in the last election. We were very clear in the last election that we would move forward with all the bills that we could not get through because the NDP, the Liberals and their other friends wanted to talk forever on these things and did not want to move forward on them.

Bill C-10 is the bill that cracks down on people who sexually exploit children, that cracks down on drug dealers. We indicated to Canadians in the last election that we were coming forward with this and we would get it passed within 100 days. We were on the right track with that bill, and this is part of that agenda of moving forward, standing up for victims and--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions, the hon. member for Essex.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if we want to know where NDP members stand on a bill like Bill C-54, we should read all the speeches they have already given, because they are almost identical, speech after speech, the same rehashed talking points. What is the substantive point of moving the debate forward if they do not actually debate, they just read the same handful of talking points over and over again?

It is time to get on. We have heard plenty of what NDP members believe about this. They are on the wrong side of the issue on the substance of it, but it is time to get on with it. Let us get on to talking about this particular bill. We will hear the same handful of talking points again in the next few hours, I am sure about that.

Let us get on with it. What does the minister have to say about what NDP members will say over the next few hours?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

It is true, Mr. Speaker, that very often NDP members make the same point, the same arguments over and over again. To be fair, it is their right to do so. They can repeat themselves ad infinitum on these, but I think it is important for Canada that we move forward on these important pieces of legislation and get them enacted into law. This country is better off when we modernize the Criminal Code, increase justice efficiencies, when we hold offenders accountable for the crimes they have committed and when we better protect victims.

However, they can repeat the same arguments on all of these if they like. That is what democracy is all about. We obviously take a different approach.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are now debating time allocation on the bill and the Conservative majority will get the time allocation they want. Whenever there is time allocation, the position I hold being a member of a party with one seat is that those of us in the backbenches over in this corner will not get any opportunity to participate in debate. Over and over again time allocation means that we do not get a speech on the key issues.

I am surprised the Minister of Justice believes the bill has been well received. I have seen from the experts in the area of mental health and the experts in criminal justice that there is no evidence whatsoever for the changes that are being proposed and that the bill needs a proper, full and thorough debate in this House.

I ask the Minister of Justice how he could miss the comments of Professor Anne Crocker, who did a report for his own department, and said, “I would say there’s no current evidence indicating the need for changing the way things are being done at the moment”.

Then she went on to say, “You wonder why you commission reports [referring to the Department of Justice] if you're not going to use them”.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have actually commissioned a couple of reports and I referred to some of the statistics in the final report that was given to us in November 2012. Indeed, there was one from 2006 that underscored some of the challenges that we have.

The member asks who we have been listening to. I make no bones about it, we have been listening to victims. We meet with victims groups. I would give the member the same advice that I would given to the NDP on a hundred different occasions. Sit down with victims groups across this country. I know members are busy and have lots of things to do, they have a constituency to look after. Even if they are down to one seat, as the Green Party is, they can still make time for victims groups across this country. I think they will be very impressed. I believe once having sat down with victims groups, members will be very supportive of what this government is doing to better protect victims.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a place of dignity. Every member in the House has a right to be here whether the minister likes it or not. I am not going to sit back and allow him to insult members who come here and have a right to be--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

That is not really a point of order.

Questions, the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech on victims is quite respectable, but we are debating a time allocation motion.

I would like the minister to save his political propaganda for the Conservatives and tell us what he is going to say to the young people of my generation who have lost their confidence in politics and democratic institutions since the Conservatives were elected in 2011. What will he say to them after closure has been invoked 34 times? What will he say to young political science students who are told ad nauseam that Canadian democracy serves as an example? What will he say to these students and the young people watching us today who have lost confidence in this Parliament because of the Conservatives?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would tell those young people, as I have told young people, that it does not get any better anywhere in the world than right here in Canada. Nobody is fairer. Nobody has better, more open debates. Nobody is more reasonable. This country is an example of what the world should become. Indeed, all of these matters will be debated and since we are talking about this particular bill, yes, we can debate this again for five hours and I am open to questions. Members do not have to ask me anything about the substance. I appreciate this is a democracy. They can just ask me about procedure if they like.

But again, for me it is the content of this legislation that is very important. Once this debate goes for second reading, as I pointed out, it will go to committee, there will be witnesses and great debate. I have complete confidence in my parliamentary secretary and all those who work with him on the justice committee that there will be good and fulsome debate. I would say to the hon. member to tune into those debates. The good thing about CPAC is that it continues to broadcast those committee meetings over and over again. If people miss it once, they will have the opportunity to get it later on, and to see politics in action.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wanted to know if the Minister of Justice had meant to use the word “fulsome”, which in relation to debate means noxious and disgusting?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Again, it is a matter of debate, not really a point of order.

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?