Debates of March 26th, 2014

Bill C-13—Time Allocation Motion

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, we did not get the response from the Minister of Justice about this very undemocratic way of bringing in a 58th time allocation motion.

I find this all the more outrageous because on March 6 or thereabouts, if I am not mistaken, I asked the minister a specific question when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. My question was about Bill C-13 because we were hearing all kinds of rumours from the Conservative benches about how the official opposition was preventing the government from putting Bill C-13 on the agenda. Only 17 people were given the chance to debate the bill over a period of just three days. I asked him if he supported giving all members of the House, no matter their party, ample time for debate so that we could study it responsibly, according to our principles. The minister replied:

We want to give not only the House [so he was including the House] but this committee in particular ample opportunity to hear from witnesses and to give it proper examination.

I would like the minister to explain the contradiction between what he told us on March 6 and what is happening now. We were supposed to continue the debate today, but here they are with their time allocation motion.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my friend has partly answered her own question; she just said there have been 13 speakers. I indicated at the time that we wanted, not only time in the House, which is of course important, but time to get the bill to committee.

That is the reality. In order for bills to progress, and the member has been here for some time, they have to go to committee. That is where we get in-depth study, witnesses, and we have an opportunity to delve into the detail, as opposed to the toing and froing, and often the partisan digression, that occurs in debate.

Members had the opportunity to talk about Bill C-13. I am sure we are all very much looking forward to expert witnesses appearing before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Their knowledge with respect to the bill will also provide a broader perspective for a more informed debate.

We have an opportunity to move this bill forward and send it to committee for study.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether, during the course of his consultations across the country on justice issues, he had the opportunity to speak to family members of loved ones who have been affected by cyberbullying. I wonder if he would take a moment to tell us about some of the things he heard about during those consultations and since the introduction of Bill C-13 and tell us why it is imperative that we get the bill to committee as soon as possible.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Gatineau on a point of order.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating a time allocation motion. We have 30 minutes to try to learn why the government is shoving a time allocation motion down our throats for the 58th time, and the parliamentary secretary is asking the minister to talk about his bill, which he wants to prevent us from doing in the next few days. Since we are debating the time allocation motion, we should be focusing on that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I appreciate the intervention by the hon. member for Gatineau. When there is a debate on a time allocation motion, normally it is appropriate to consider the debate on the bill itself.

It is very difficult to consider the elements of time allocation without drawing in elements of the sense of the bill, and so this is normally considered to be a pertinent and appropriate part of the debate.

The hon. Minister of Justice.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, for his question is a very important one about the consultation. It does go to the sense of urgency and the sense of priority that we place on the bill. We not only met with those in the country who are affected by this particular scourge of cyberbullying, including family members, but we of course consulted with police, with academics, and with individuals who have specific knowledge of the technical aspects required to enforce this new law.

To return to the question, the families, in particular, and the victims and young people in the country who are affected by cyberbullying need to know that this is being given priority by all members of the House, that we will move the bill to committee, and that we will have an opportunity to ultimately enact a law that is designed to protect people and prevent victimization by cyberbullying.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister is on process and deals with the fact that, again, the government has chosen not to refer the bill to committee before second reading. If the matter were of the urgency the minister says it is, after five hours of debate the bill could have been automatically referred to committee before second reading, if the government had chosen that route. That would have then allowed committee to hear all the witnesses and to engage in a very constructive manner on that bill.

I do not recall that the current government has, at any time, chosen to use that particular process, which greatly legitimizes the work of committees. It is just forcing a guillotine on the time, again, without using a much more constructive approach by referring it to second reading.

Why has the government, again, decided not to choose a more constructive and, I think, more participatory manner of dealing with the bill?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that we proceeded in this matter in good faith, expecting that the bill would have ample discussion before the House of Commons. There would be an opportunity for members to speak, and there have been opportunities. As has been noted, some 13 members have already voiced their opinions on the bill. There was an indication and a discussion, I am assuming, that took place among the House leaders. I a former House leader.

I do not make the decision as to how we proceed in this matter. We proceeded in a way in which we felt we could expeditiously move the bill through the House and get it to committee, a place where witnesses, experts, could then have their say. Then the House, of course, will have the bill return.

Therefore, we have presented the bill in the usual fashion. We have proceeded in a way that we hoped would result in co-operation in moving it toward committee. Unfortunately, that failed. We find it necessary to use this particular process, now, to get the bill to committee for the purposes of protecting and promoting public safety in the area of cyberbullying, as I said.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I find myself in a kind of peculiar circumstance in that I am one of the people who has not spoken yet. I care very much about this bill and very much hoped to speak on it.

My question to the minister is this. Where did the sense of urgency suddenly come from?

Eighteen months ago, the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord introduced a bill for a national anti-bullying strategy that would have provided concrete measures to end bullying, but that side voted against that bill. Last summer, on June 17, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour introduced a private member's bill to prevent the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. We offered to proceed with that bill immediately and the government was not interested in doing that. We even offered to split this bill when it was introduced in November, I believe, and those parts that were very urgent could have been proceeded with.

I find it very hard to understand the sense of urgency today that would prevent members like me from speaking on this bill.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the very simple and practical answer is that, while we sit here tonight discussing this issue, the world is moving ahead in terms of technology. Canada is lagging in its ability to police the Internet. There has been an explosion of activity on the Internet, we know, some of which is very detrimental to young people.

Three days of debate have been allocated. There will be, even as a result of this procedure, two more days of debate on the subject matter. There is, of course, the opportunity to appear at committee, as the member is entitled to do as a member of the House of Commons; so ample debate and talk has taken place. It is time for action. It is time to move this bill forward, enact the legislation, and protect the youth of this country.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what he is saying is totally wrong. If he were right in his convictions, then he would know that this is how we actually have debate. It is not just at committee. This is to make sure we have proper oversight. This is a government that is not interested in proper oversight; we have seen it before the courts over and over again on legislation that it keeps ramming through.

My question to the minister is this. Is it the Conservatives' intent to again see their bills go before the courts and be found to be against the Constitution or against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Why is it that they always have to go back and fix their legislation? It is because they keep rushing it through.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, certainly it is never the intent of any government, I would suggest, that it result in litigation. We, of course, have a very substantial team of individuals at the Department of Justice who review bills, look at their constitutionality, and look for charter compliance.

Returning to where we are and why we want to move this debate forward and get the bill to committee, the days and time are limited. We need to move legislation through the House of Commons rather than railing against the moon. I do not know why members would not want to embrace this opportunity. As was mentioned, there have been previous iterations of this bill. Private members, including members of the NDP, have brought forward bills that embraced the spirit of this legislation.

Now is an opportunity to put partisanship aside and simply move a bill forward that is for the betterment of our country, in particular for the protection of young people who are affected by cyberbullying. Rather than engage in this partisan debate, let us move this bill through the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question for the hon. Minister of Justice is this. He claims there are ample opportunities. All members of the House are equal, at least in theory, but whenever there is time allocation—and this particular administration has used time allocation, smashing through all historical records of any administration in the history of this country—it inevitably means that representatives of smaller parties, such as me as leader of the Green Party, or members of the Bloc Québécois, or independent members of Parliament, are not given any speaking slots whatsoever.

As egregious as it is for my friend from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca to anticipate that he would not be able to speak, at least members of his party will have spoken. As egregious as it is for my friend from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca that he might not be able to speak, at least he could speak at committee, whereas members in our situation are precluded from speaking in committee, in any committee; and when there was an opportunity put forward by the NPD in the procedure and House affairs committee recently, the Conservatives defeated it.

Our constituents are equal to the constituents of any Conservative member of Parliament, but our constituents are denied an opportunity to participate when time allocation is used.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I invite the hon. member to take part in the debate, as she is doing here and will have an opportunity to do. There are two more days.

I did not make up the composition of the House in the last election. That was done by the wisdom of the Canadian people. She may not have representation as a party in the House of Commons. That, again, is a reality of the electoral outcome of the last election campaign. When we have an opportunity to move an important piece of legislation like this through the House, I would suggest it is not a partisan issue. It is an issue for which all members have expressed support in principle.

I am going to make a statement with which I think members may agree. Let us hear from experts on the bill. We all may have opinions. The hon. member from British Columbia might have a strong opinion on this. I would suggest that on a bill of this nature, technical as it is, we should hear from the experts. Let us hear from family members, police, and those who are affected by the explosion of activity on the Internet. The need to move this bill forward and the need for action is now.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we have been in the House for many years.

When the Conservatives were in opposition, they were the ones yelling at the Liberals, saying that imposing a gag order on members regarding a bill was completely undemocratic. Indeed, it is in the House of Commons that these debates take place. In committee, we do our work and bring forward amendments, but debates among representatives democratically elected by their constituents happen right here.

I remember that same minister rising in this House in anger because a gag order had been imposed on the members regarding a bill.

What does he think of the 58 gag orders imposed by this Conservative government, just since 2011?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his rant.

What we are trying to do is legislate in an area that is very important. My colleague, the member for Gatineau, said this in her opening speech, when we first debated this bill; and of course we did debate the bill. To suggest that members are being muzzled is wholly inaccurate. Members are here speaking. No one is being muzzled.

Here is what the member for Gatineau said. “I think that the minister wants as many members as possible to support his bill”. She is right.

“I therefore hope that he will be open to allowing us to study this aspect [of the bill very] carefully”. We are not studying it here.

She went on to say, “We will have some serious arguments to make in committee about these aspects of the bill”; so let us get it to committee. We are not studying it. We are jawing about it. Let us move it to committee and actually get down to the nitty-gritty of getting the bill right.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I honestly think all of us would agree that we need to take steps to make sure our children are being protected, particularly on the Internet. The bill does offer a variety of different means, and I know the minister has been very hard at work consulting with victims and their families, as well as law enforcement.

I would ask the minister what tools this piece of legislation would give to our law enforcement officers, so they could stem some of the very devastating activities that are happening on the Internet. Most people would certainly agree that if we did it here rather than on a screen, the RCMP or OPP would be able to take immediate action to rectify it. Therefore, what tools would the legislation give, so we could actively show support for law enforcement to take on these crimes?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the relevant, pertinent question. What we are doing in essence is empowering police to investigate and police the Internet, but to do so with judicial oversight, by virtue of a warrant. This differs markedly from previous incarnations of this bill.

The bill would allow the police to seek out the offending material and those responsible. We have seen some very tragic cases. As the member is aware—with Amanda Todd in his own province and Rehtaeh Parsons on the east coast—the implications of this type of intimidation and blackmail, the type of very offensive material that can be used to extort and intimidate individuals, can be loss of life. It can result in some very uncomfortable and disturbing situations.

We want to give the police the ability to stop, to intercede, and in some cases to remove that material. The bill would empower them to do that. It would, of course, require a holistic approach. It would not be just legislation. It requires everyone to get involved.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two points to raise.

First, the minister is saying that this is an urgent matter, that it is time for action and not debate. In 2012, the Conservative government defeated my bill that sought to implement a national bullying prevention strategy. Apparently, the matter was not so urgent then. However, it seems that in 2014, it is urgent. I find that the minister is being quite inconsistent.

Recently, this same government took a month off by proroguing the House. If it had not taken a month off at the taxpayers' expense, then we might have had more time to pass this bill and debate it with more experts.

I have been working on this issue for two and a half years, and I have not yet been able to speak to Bill C-13. There are so many of us in the NDP who wish to speak to this that there is a good chance that I will not be able to as a result of this time allocation motion.

Does the minister not want to hear what I, as an expert on the matter, have to say about this bill?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, no. I do not feel inclined to hear from the member.

I feel inclined to hear more from experts. Many people have stated that they want this bill to move forward. The member talked about 2012. I am going to go back further, to 2009, when Bill C-46 was brought before the House of Commons, and Bill C-51 in 2010. There was an individual at that time who seemed to think there was an urgency to move bills forward. He said that the “bill is quite overdue in terms of when it should have been on the law books of this country”.

Those amendments have been planned for some time. There was a sense of urgency then, coming from the NDP. It was the hon. member who was then justice critic and an hon. member of the NDP.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am one of the individuals who will not be afforded an opportunity to speak on this bill, and I would have liked to speak on this bill before it is voted on here and sent to committee.

To the government members, there are not two days left. The minister keeps saying there are two. The motion actually says there will be one more sitting day for members to speak on the bill, which I will not have an opportunity to do.

However, there have been 34 days since the bill was last discussed, and now today. What has made it so urgent that it could not have been spoken on during any of those other 34 days? The government did not bring it forward.

It is not up to us to bring forward bills. It is up to the government. The government says that we have to do this immediately, now, and yet it has let 34 days lapse. It is so hypocritical. I wish the government would answer that very simple question.

Why now?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I find the hon. member's position and question quite paradoxical.

Obviously, we are moving forward in this fashion because we do sense urgency. We are hearing from police. We are hearing from families. We are hearing from individuals, and, formerly, from individual members of the opposition who said that we have to get this bill in place, we have to have the laws enhanced, and that police need these tools. Our communities and our schools are vulnerable because of cyberbullying. That is the sense of urgency.

As to who takes credit for it or who gets to speak, the sense of urgency is very real. This is not something that has been invented by the government. Members should talk to people in their communities, individuals on the street who want to see tougher laws on cyberbullying. I expect that people will say that they do not want us to debate it more in the House of Commons but want us to pass the law, have it in place, and give police the tools to enforce the law.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the minister that only five pages of his 70-page bill deal with cyberbullying. This bill goes much further than just addressing cyberbullying.

I would like to remind the minister that we have already asked him to divide the bill so that we can pass a bill on cyberbullying. He knows full well that he is talking through his hat when he says that the opposition is against measures to address cyberbullying.

My colleague from Gatineau mentioned that only 17 people have spoken about this bill. That is 17 of the 308 members of the House. A quick calculation shows that that is only 5% of Canada's population, 5% of the members in the House who were able to speak on this issue.

When does the government believe a democratic debate has occurred? Is it after 1% or 1.5% of members have spoken? Will opposition members no longer have the right to debate bills? When does the government decide that we have talked enough and that a democratic debate has taken place? Is it when only 5% of members have had the chance to speak?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that if it means saving lives, yes.

Bill C-13 combines a proposed new offence, non-consensual distribution of intimate images, to address cyberbullying, along with judicially authorized tools to help police and prosecutors investigate not only the proposed new offence but also other, existing offences.

The member is right; we are committed to policing the Internet via judicially authorized authority that involves electronic evidence.

The elements of this bill are intricately connected. Why would we pass a law and then go about bringing in other legislation to allow enforcement? This bill is in concert with the same theme of helping to protect people from abuse on the Internet.

We are proceeding in this fashion to give police the tools to do their important work.