Debates of June 18th, 2014

Bill C-32—Time Allocation Motion

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic to hear the minister say that time allocation motions have been used throughout Canadian history. When time allocation was used by the Liberals, his party and his prime minister said that it was an affront to Parliament.

I really wonder if he understands that we want to hear from Canadians in committee and that we also represent Canadians. My riding has 99,000 voters and a population of 130,000 people. I do not think that many of them attend committee meetings. That is why I am here, and that is true of all my colleagues and the minister's colleagues as well.

I would like to respond to what he said to my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île when he talked about how we could not raise 25 members to stand and prevent the leader of the official opposition from testifying. First of all, the opposition leader had the courage to testify, unlike most of the ministers in this place. Second, the Speaker ruled that the manoeuvre was not allowed.

In closing, I wonder what he really means when he talks about being on duty. Last Thursday, they had a bit of trouble getting back to the House to vote at 11 p.m. We wonder who is really on duty.

Is he not tired of seeing his government act this way?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I know they are anxious to get to their hot dog and hamburger party tonight, but this is an important issue. We are dealing now with victims rights. We want to move this legislation along, so we can actually protect victims in Canada, so we can have the bill in place that would accord them protection from re-victimization in the courts. It would allow them a flow of important information, so they can make decisions for themselves and their loved ones.

Bill C-32 has had five days of debate in the House of Commons. We know there will be ample further opportunity at committee. There will be an opportunity when the bill comes back to the House. I do not know why they do not want to do their jobs: show up, debate important bills, and allow Canadians to see that this Parliament actually functions.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when a right is violated, what recourse does the victim have to seek restitution?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, when the bill becomes law, one of the rights that to be entrenched in the bill is that individuals who seek restitution will have recourse.

As a result of our government, we now have a federal victims ombudsman. Victims would have the opportunity to seek recourse and see that restitution, get the information they needed and the protections that would be afforded them when the courts ordered certain protections around individuals. Very often we are talking about individuals who have been sexually assaulted or abused physically. In cases of seniors, it sometimes involves fraudulent acts that have robbed them of their life's savings.

The bill is designed specifically to allow recourse. In addition to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there would also be a victims bill of rights, which would be there specifically to protect those in Canada who have, unfortunately through criminality, found themselves as victims caught up in our system.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the present debate on the time allocation motion.

Again, this is the 75th time allocation motion. I would like to single out this particular time allocation motion by pointing out that the government said at the beginning that these were old bills that had been amply debated during previous Parliaments. However, this bill is new. It was introduced by the Minister of Justice, who is here to answer questions.

He seemed to be saying that there has been enough debate. I was wondering whether he could tell me how many speakers, hours or days it takes before the Conservatives consider that this bill has been debated enough and muzzle Parliament, preventing members from all parties to speak to the bill.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, to be clear, all parties will speak to this, and all parties have spoken to this. We have had five days dedicated to the debate so far.

Yesterday we used time allocation on Bill C-2, which had over 97 speakers and over 26 hours of debate. When I was minister of defence, we had a bill that had been presented over three successive Parliaments, and it had been debated endlessly.

The members of the NDP continue to put up speakers time after time, reading the same speech, using the same specious arguments, somehow to prevent the bill from becoming law. We are saying enough is enough.

There has been debate on this important issue. Some major consultations took place to put the bill before Parliament. Some 500 individuals and groups were given the opportunity, from every province and territory, to speak about the bill. Canadians have had a lot of input on the bill already, and they will have more opportunity at committee. It is time for the members of the NDP to put victims first.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government House leader.

We need to acknowledge the fact that the majority Conservative government has set a record on the number of times in which time allocation has been brought in to force through its legislation. We would have said that back when the Conservatives passed time allocation 30 times. However, today, we are talking about 75 pieces of legislation where the government has brought in time allocation.

Time allocation is closure. It is designed to stop debate inside the House of Commons. It is really all about that.

With respect to wasteful time, we have literally used dozens and dozens of hours debating closure and time allocation on bills. We are talking pretty close to 100 hours just on the issue of process.

Will the government House leader acknowledge that the real reason we are dealing with this issue today is because of the government's inability, and the official opposition's inability, to negotiate a timely discussion so the legislative process can move forward, without having to implement time allocation on every bill, it would seem?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear on the reason we are using this very legitimate parliamentary procedure, which is not closure by the way. Time allocation has been used and has been part of parliamentary procedure going back to the very beginnings of this place. The member is correct, though, in pointing out that a previous Liberal government would also use this on occasion.

The truth is that when we have important legislation, such as the victims bill of rights, and we are unable to forge agreement in a way that would allow the bill to proceed, this is the way in which Parliament permits progress. This is the way in which important legislation is able to navigate the path forward, which will involve further committee debate and a return to this place. Suggesting somehow that this is a cutting-off the debate and that this is the end of people's ability to give input into this important bill pertaining to victims is factually incorrect.

When the debate is not being productive and when it is simply the reading of patent speeches over and over again, I do not think Canadians see that as a productive use of this place's time. I do not see that as a way to move legislation such as the victims bill of rights forward. That is why we are in this place.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague mentioned, it has been used on occasion, but this has been the norm with the Conservative government.

On this bill, we have to recognize why there needs to be more discussion. We have to look at Frank Addario who is a criminal lawyer. A newspaper article stated:

Frank Addario...said the Conservative government’s agenda is to position itself as tough on crime, even though it knows its measures have little real-world effect. It's cynicism masquerading as policy....We did not need a new law for government to tell itself that it should communicate with victims about criminal cases.

When we look at that and we look at the government's record with respect to how it has lost court cases—the prosecution law, the safe injection site, Justice Nadon—maybe my colleague could come to the realization that the reason there are debates is to try to avoid these things, to try to avoid wasting taxpayer dollars before the courts for bills that the government is losing. Maybe my colleague could acknowledge the fact that the Conservatives have lost a lot of bills because their not allowing proper debate to happen.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how that rambling question has anything to do with support for victims. She can read from her BlackBerry from some NDP lawyer who is sending in this important pressing question about how our criminal justice agenda has improved things for victims.

I just mentioned the victims ombudsman. We have a victims fund program at the Department of Justice that has dedicated resources to help victim services across Canada. We work closely with the provinces and territories.

We have put in place some of the most forward-looking legislation when it comes to the protection of children. We have made some 600 appointments to various courts across the country, judges who are now adjudicating over important legislative matters. We have more bills in the queue, including a bill, as the member would know, with respect to the protection of those who are falling victim to cybercrime and those who are being bullied online. We have important legislation before the House that pertains specifically to plugging the hole that was created by the Supreme Court of Canada when it struck down important provisions of the Criminal Code that pertained to prostitution. These are very critical initiatives.

Sometimes time is of the essence, as is the case with Bill C-36, where we have one calendar year, six months of which has already passed. That is why we have to sometimes invoke this provision which allows the members of the House of Commons to have their say.

In this case some 26 members of the opposition have already weighed in on this. If they sit on a committee, they will have an opportunity to similarly voice their views.

However, what I hear from these speeches is the same patented pablum that does not put forward any constructive ideas. It is the same regurgitated speeches from the opposition, rather than the members saying how they would do it, how they would substantively improve the bill and these are their ideas. There is none of that. It is just absolute criticism without anything in place that would be positive or would help improve the legislation.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not criticize the Minister of Justice for having the impression that he keeps hearing the same speeches. I imagine that extreme fatigue is making his ears ring.

The celebrated Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was introduced with great fanfare some time ago. It was touted as a priority. I remember Senators Dagenais and Boisvenu boasting that it would be the solution to all the woes of victims of crime.

Is the Minister of Justice not even a little embarrassed to have sidelined this issue and then stampeded it back out alongside many other bills at the very last minute? Certain victims who are putting a lot of hope in the bill will have to wait. Who knows how this will end.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have been the Minister of Justice for less than a year. I took part in the consultations last summer. We went to every province and territory along with Senator Boisvenu. I would be a bit hesitant if I were that member to invoke the name of Senator Boisvenu, who lost two children, who feels very passionate about victims.

For that member to suggest that we have been slow in bringing this legislation forward, I can only tell him that we are the first government in Canadian history to entrench the rights of victims in legislation. The legislation would give them recourse when they felt that they had been further victimized by the system. The legislation would give them the ability to point to federal legislation that said their rights as a Canadian, as somebody who had to navigate through a difficult justice system, would be protected. The legislation would entrench their rights in law and those rights would advance their ability to move forward with their life and work with the people in the system, as well as their loved ones, to move past a terrible crime thrust upon them and their families.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to the next question, I want to remind all hon. members that when there is a time allocation motion before the House and the 30-minute debate ensues, we do not follow the normal rotation where questions go from caucus to caucus to caucus, but rather a large majority of the questions are reserved for opposition members and typically one or two questions are given to a government member. There seems to be some confusion on that score.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard members many times today refer to time allocation. We are supposed to be talking about the victims bill of rights. For the first time in Canada victims will be recognized. For the first time they will have the ability to get restitution. So many victims are anxiously waiting for this legislation. They often go into courts without information and are lost.

Would the justice minister please comment on the victims side of the bill. Could he comment on how they feel about getting the bill through and why they need it passed so quickly?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that excellent member has dedicated so much of her life to helping victims, in particular those victims of human trafficking. She has worked closely with individuals who would best be described as vulnerable Canadians. She knows the justice system is a complex system that often requires legal guidance that is not always available.

The victims bill of rights is meant to help those who find themselves as victims. It is meant to help those who are often witnesses in court to access services, victim services in particular. These services are available far more readily now than they were when I practised law some 15 years ago. Victim services are set up in every territory and province and programs are designed specifically to provide that type of support.

This bill of rights would entrench in law the right to information, the right to restitution, the right to protection. It would give victims a better feeling knowing that they were included in the system, that their voice would not only be heard, but would be important and responded to. Crown prosecutors, lawyers, judges and police are enthusiastic about the legislation, but no one more so than victims themselves. They have been waiting literally years to have this type of protection, this type of ability, to have legislative protection. That is why we need to move the bill forward as hastily as possible.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what struck me is just how certain my colleagues on the other side are of always being right. What victims need is to feel that Parliament debated a bill and the opposition’s suggestions were considered. That is when victims will be certain of having the best bill.

What is happening here is that perhaps 24 hours from the end of the session, they have brought forward something half-baked that will most certainly end up like so many other pieces of legislation declared unconstitutional by the courts. How we do our work and how we serve the public are matters of professionalism. Everyone here was elected to do this work, and everyone should have a say. Muzzling us does not serve democracy.

Canadians will not forgive them for their arrogance. They will end up sitting on the other side, forced to follow the small Liberal opposition there will be.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree fundamentally with his characterization that there is muzzling. We have heard from almost 30 members. We have had almost nine hours of debate on the bill.

As I said, there were some 500 participants in the consultations. It did not take place here. It did not take place in the sanctity of this building, in this wonderful environment. It took place in their communities, their hometowns, their cities, and their justice complexes. We went to them and heard directly from them. That formed the basis of this legislation.

As far as future input from the opposition, by all means, we encourage and welcome their constructive ideas at committee, when they can actually make changes to the bill, when there can actually be amendments, but not during debate, and not through simply repeating the rehashed NDP talking points.

The member says he is supporting the bill. He wants it to move forward. He wants it to become legislation, but he wants it to continue to be debated here in the House of Commons and hold it up so that we can get out of here and go back to our ridings. That is not what we are here to do. We are here to move legislation forward, get the bill in place, and get the protections for victims when they really need it, which is now. In fact, it was a while ago.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by condemning the frankly contemptuous and disgraceful tone taken by the Minister of Justice, as well as the words he used to describe my colleagues from all parties and the work we do in the House. He holds a supposedly honourable position but does not at all act the way Canadians expect him to. If I were him, I would be ashamed of treating the people sitting in the House the way he does. We were all elected by Canadians, who put their trust in us. Each of us deserves the same respect. I am really ashamed to hear him speak.

We know very well why the Conservatives have moved their 75th time allocation motion. They want to have total control in committee. We know how things work in committee; Canadians are not fooled. The Conservatives control the number of witnesses and the testimony. They want to control what is in the report and cover up all the information.

I want the minister to promise not to limit the number of witnesses who will appear before the committee or the time allotted for the study. Is the minister prepared to promise that?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the member feels that way. She is entitled to her opinion, of course. As far as who appears at committees and the work of committees, and I know that she is relatively new here, that does not happen. Ministers do not tell committees what witnesses to call. They do not tell committees how to conduct their business.

The member is laughing, showing disdain for Parliament, and showing disdain for this debate. She stood in her place just a moment ago and personally attacked me and then accused me of being condescending to her. I am sorry she has those feelings.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the previous questioner said that we are sent here by Canadians, and she is right about that. We are all sent here by Canadians to represent them. Debate just for the sake of debate, with no constructive result coming out of it, makes no sense to Canadians. We have been sitting here over the last several weeks, in fact since I was elected in 2011, and I have heard NDP members get up, time and time again, with repetitive, regurgitated speeches, with nothing new to offer to the debate.

I heard the member for Winnipeg North earlier make a passionate comment about the time allocation process. A study came out about six or seven months ago that showed that this member has spoken the most of anyone else in the House, with some 227,000 words in a year. By some calculations, if every member of the House said 227,000 words, we would need about 1,300 sitting days. I think we can get our points across without being so verbose.

This piece of legislation would entrench the rights of victims in law for the first time in our country, a country that is 147 years old. Could the minister speak to the importance of that for Canadians and the importance of that to victims and their families?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I take the hon. member's point. It is not the number of words spoken, it is the quality. It is the legislative initiatives that actually find their way into law and protect Canadians. That is the very essence of this bill. The member is absolutely right in suggesting that this type of legislation is designed, at its core, to improve victims' lives and to put forward compassionate measures that would entrench in law, for the first time, their ability to ensure that their rights to information, protection, and restitution are being respected by the system.

The broad consultation we have done to bring the bill to this point gives me confidence, and should give Canadians and opposition members confidence, that this bill would actually improve our system. It would make it more workable, more inclusive, and more available. It is that availability of information, basic information, about the timing of court hearings, when they are to show up, what they are allowed to bring with them, and what they are allowed to bring to court that is one of the improvements we would make.

I saw incredible work being done by victims' services across the country. It could be something as simple as allowing a child to take a pet to an interview or to appear before a court behind a screen when being cross-examined by an abuser. That is the type of improvement we want to see. They are practical improvements that would help victims in our system.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to keep it simple for the minister. I would like to repeat the question. When this bill goes forward to committee, which it will do after this time allocation, will the minister guarantee that we will hear from those witnesses who can provide expert testimony, in detail, on this particular bill so we can make sure, like for every piece of legislation, that every aspect of it is correct and as good as possible?

Is he going to allow this type of work to go ahead at committee, or are we going to see the same kind of business that has been going on for the last year in this Parliament, where the committees have been limited in the number of witnesses they can see?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, let us back up. We will not have an opportunity to hear from those witnesses if we continue to delay this bill in the House of Commons. I come back to his question. I was asked a question—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I know that they are chirping over there.

I know that the member is from Western Arctic, and he will be very happy to know that we did a lot of consultation in his part of the country. We heard directly from victims and participants in the justice system.

When it comes to committee witnesses, I invite the member to rise in this place and walk over to talk to the committee chair, because it is the chair who decides on the witnesses and the sitting times. That work is done by those committees at arm's length from the Minister of Justice. He would be the first, I am sure, to rise in his place and decry any interference from the Minister of Justice if I in any way tried to influence those witnesses.