David McGuinty

[Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, November 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to my colleague's remarks.

The U.S. has a great deal of experience with mandatory minimum sentences. This concept was invented and perfected in the U.S., particularly in Texas and California.

However, in the past four or five years, a senator and a congressman have finally concluded that there is no proof or analysis to justify this shift towards harsher and harsher minimum prison sentences.

Can my colleague help us understand why the government continues to push for a concept that even the Republican Party in the United States has given up on?

[Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, November 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the challenge we are having on this side of the House is not that there is no substantiation for the government's position on mandatory minimums, but it knows that this is not going to work. The government's own officials have told it in writing that this is not going to work.

It is not just Liberals who oppose mandatory minimums for their own sake. Here is perhaps one of the most compelling voices. Former Progressive Conservative MP for Ottawa West David Daubney, who retired only recently as director of criminal law policy in the Department of Justice after a distinguished career there, was quoted as saying this about the government as he was on the way out the door, “The policy is based on fear – fear of criminals and fear of people who are different. I do not think these harsh views are deeply held.” He went on to say at the same time, because he was the subject of so much pressure inside the department, that “Somebody has to take the risk of talking.”

Could my colleague tell me what would possess a government or a minister of justice, who swears to uphold the law when he is sworn in as the minister and who has to bring opinions to the floor of the House from his own lawyers to show that the legislation is constitutional and in conformity with the charter, to take action with the deliberate knowledge that it will not work?

[Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, November 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be here to debate this extremely important bill.

The crux of the differences here in the House relates to mandatory minimum sentences. I want to ask if the member could help all parliamentarians understand where the government actually sits on mandatory minimums.

Under the Department of Justice Act that created the department, there is a statutory obligation that the Minister of Justice is sworn to uphold when sworn in as minister. He must table on the floor of the House of Commons, for any bill that he brings to this House, the legal opinion prepared by his expert 2,500 lawyers on his full-time staff. He must table an opinion showing that the bill he is bringing to the floor is charter-proof--in other words, that it is compliant with Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Has the government tabled that opinion? If it has not done so, when will it do so?

[Petitions, November 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to table the second petition on behalf of many concerned citizens regarding the government's serious cuts to the interim federal health program, which has assisted refugees in Canada since the 1950s.

I look forward to the government's response to these petitions.

[Petitions, November 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I rise to table two petitions. The first is yet another petition regarding the devastating cuts to service and huge price increases at Canada Post.

[Regional Economic Development, November 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, here is what is at stake for Canada in the Ring of Fire: 5,500 jobs; $25 billion in economic activity for our financial services, wholesale, retail, utilities, infrastructure, and manufacturing sectors; full participation of first nation communities. Ontario has brought $1 billion to the table. An independent development corporation has been set up. Corporate investors are on standby.

Time is of the essence. Will the Prime Minister meet with Ontario's premier by the end of this year, do his job, and support this project of national significance?

[Parliament of Canada Act, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating our leader for the courageous decisions he has already taken and for the courage of his convictions in putting forth this private member's bill.

I want to go back to something he alluded to at the very beginning of his remarks. He talked about expanding on two important measures: first, opening up a secretive Board of Internal Economy; and, second, opening up and making more transparent all government information when we live in a time of incredible modern technology. Access to information is critical.

However, he alluded to something very important, which I think is foundational to his intention here today. Could he help us understand how this would drive up confidence, confidence in government generally in the 21st century, and trust and confidence in our democratic institutions in Canada?

[Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is, no. I think I posed a fair question for the member for Yukon, who, to restate what he said, stated that the events last month occurred “due to the lack of appropriate legislative tools” available.

I asked the member for Yukon and the government to describe and explain exactly how that was. What was the causal connection that he was asserting? It was a very serious assertion to make. What powers were not already in place that could perhaps have trumped or prevented this from occurring? Where have CSIS, the RCMP, or our law enforcement agencies said publicly that they need X new power or Y new power to make sure that this does not happen again? The government has not explained this.

This is precisely why we need to get this to committee and ask the tough and probative questions so that we can make sure that we achieve what Aristotle once described in French as le juste milieu, the right balance between the powers we invest in our law enforcement agencies and that human rights that make our Canadian lifestyle the best in the world.

[Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, that is a series of questions that should be put directly to expert witnesses at committee. That is why the government should not just speed ahead and should ensure that the committee has the time it needs to hear all of the viewpoints from all of the necessary experts.

This is a very important issue for Canadian society. We are talking about a balance between protecting human rights and granting surveillance powers to our police forces and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. We need to move slowly, pianissimo, as they say in Italian, so that we are sure to strike that balance.

[Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I think this is one of the most glaring gaps in the bill. If the government were honest in its examination of best international practices today, it would say that the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, the four foundational partners in the so-called Five Eyes partnership, have all moved forward, particularly the United States, which has made a lot of mistakes. The congressional leadership in the U.S. will tell us that they made a lot of mistakes because they over-reacted after 9/11. Since then they have tried to move the balance back to the centre.

Part of that involves, as my colleague for Vancouver Quadra has put forward in her bill, Bill C-622, the idea that we would create an all-party committee to oversee the important work of CSIS. That would be foundational to improving the status quo, which is something for the life of us on this side of the House cannot understand why the government would not be embracing.