Peter MacKay

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, October 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is because I rely, not on the advice of the member opposite, but on the advice of departmental officials, lawyers and those who argue the case, those who are involved intimately in tracking the Spencer decision and drafting this legislation. This is not some sort of a fly-by-night written on the back of an envelope piece of legislation. This has been in the works for some time. It has been studied extensively. We have heard from numerous experts and we have heard from the people most affected, the victims. They have told us of the urgency.

The member said, just a moment ago, that they are not trying to hold up the bill. There have been some 20 speakers from the NDP on the bill. We have ample time to look at the bill in further detail, not this type of banter back and forth in the House of Commons but in committee.

Therefore, when it comes to the constitutionality of Bill C-13, we believe strongly that this not only passes constitutional muster, but it does what it is intended to do. That is to allow police, with judicial oversight, to do proper investigations that protect the public at large.

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, October 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I recall well the words of Mr. Canning, Rehtaeh Parsons' father, as well as her mother and other witnesses, family members, who have suffered the pain, the indignity, humiliation and ultimately the untimely loss of life as a result of persistent and pernicious online bullying.

The non-consensual distribution of intimate images can literally take lives. I cannot emphasize enough, as my friend has said and Mr. Canning and others have said, the urgency with regard to moving the legislation forward, putting in place those necessary protections found in the Criminal Code and giving the police the power to intervene and pre-empt and prevent the type of activity that led to the death of Rehtaeh Parsons, Amanda Todd and others.

That early intervention is what allows a parent to have the natural joy they should expect in seeing their children grow up, graduate and go on to lead healthy and productive lives. That is what is at stake.

An alarmist attitude has been expressed by some, including some of the so-called experts, that this is going to allow police to snoop online. The police are more interested in catching child pornographers, terrorists and those who are preying on the elderly with online fraud schemes. These are the types of activities we are out to enable police to intervene on, investigate and ultimately prevent.

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, October 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, that is in fact the very crux of the issue, striking that balance between protection of online activity while at the same time giving police modern powers with judicial oversight. There were certainly criticisms and legitimate concerns raised in the past and with respect to the bill about unlawful access online to information. The bill requires judicial oversight. The bill does not create new powers for police that go beyond the Criminal Code. It does not allow for any new online investigation without judicial oversight.

It is important that people understand that if the police want to use the powers contained in Bill C-13, they by necessity have to get a warrant from a judge, so the judicial oversight provisions are here. They are alive and present in the bill. They are also respectful and responding to recommendations that came from a very intense consultation with provinces and territories, not to mention what we heard at committee and not to mention what we have heard from experts such as the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime who said:

This legislation, if passed, will help to provide tools necessary to assist in reducing cyberbullying and in providing victims with much-needed supports.

It will empower the police to protect people online.

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, October 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what was stated by my friend, there has been significant debate. There has been opportunity both inside and outside the House to look at this significant issue.

However, let us not lose sight of what the bill is about. The bill is about protecting people. It is in response to a very real need. Cyber-intimidation, cyberbullying, cybercrime is a very serious issue in this country today and we have seen instances where it literally cost young people their lives. Therefore, when we are talking about the provisions to improve the Criminal Code, to improve the ability to investigate online crime, we are talking about in some cases modernizing sections of the Criminal Code that were in place pre-Internet. Issues of intimidation and harassment are by necessity being updated in the legislation.

It is of the essence that we do this in a timely fashion and that we do this in a way that is respectful of the courts, which it is. With technology continuing to move at breakneck speed, I would suggest that languishing and repeating the same lines over and over about splitting the bill and that we should always go to the courts first, that is not the role of the democratically elected body of the House. It is certainly not the view shared by the government that we do everything only at the behest and at the request of the Supreme Court.

[Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, September 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker,

Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward

I know what the member is trying to do in drawing this analogy, but the truth is that the bill has been examined. It has been before committee, both in the House and the Senate. It has received constitutional examination. We have the wisdom of the court in the Bedford decision. We had 3,100 participants in an online consultation. We heard from some 90 experts with respect to the bill itself. I took part in round tables at which I heard directly from individuals. We have had the benefit of debate in the House.

Therefore, I am surprised by members opposite suggesting that we should continually abdicate our responsibility and go back to the courts again. They would have us refer another question to the courts rather than to the duly elected, democratically elected body that is obligated to properly examine legislation and make good decisions.

We are not going to simply defer that responsibility to the courts. We are going to proceed with thoughtful, productive legislation. That is what we have before the Parliament of Canada today.

[Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, September 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, that is just factually incorrect, again, from the member for Charlottetown. That poll was released, in fact, and that information was made available at the statutory release time. I know the member may not want to accept that, but those are the rules that were in place when his party was in government and those are the rules that we respect with the release of public data information.

The information has been released, it is in the public realm, it was available to members of the committee to examine, and it was but part of the information that we relied on. The polling data information, in fact, contained far more than just specific information. In included public consultation on the subject of prostitution in the Bedford decision. It went across an array of other subject matter.

For the member opposite to try to leave the impression that the information was withheld, that it was not examined by members of the committee is just untrue.

[Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, September 25th, 2014]

I have answered that question repeatedly, Mr. Speaker, both here and in committee. The reality is that we receive advice from the Department of Justice on the constitutionality and charter compliance of every bill. This is done routinely.

We receive advice across departments with regard to the constitutionality of legislation. It is a routine procedure. We have very capable lawyers within the Department of Justice, and I am surprised that members opposite are in essence casting aspersions on that advice and suggesting that somehow we as a government would misinterpret that advice or would somehow obscure the advice that we are getting.

The members opposite continue to shout. It is fine for them to insult the government or insult me in their questions; I accept that. It is part of the exchange. They are continuing to chirp away. That is fine. They are perfectly within their right in doing so, but this is really a serious debate. They should focus on serious questions and serious issues that matter to Canadians.

[Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, September 25th, 2014]

Of course, Mr. Speaker, that is a legitimate question.

What we have obviously seen through this legislation is a situation where prostitution in an asymmetrical way would become illegal for the very first time, the act of prostitution and the purchasing of sexual services. We believe that this would put into the hands of the police the ability to enforce the law to protect those vulnerable persons who are drawn into this life.

This is an approach that has been taken in other jurisdictions. We have looked, in particular, at many of the Nordic countries. Interestingly, other countries, including France and parts of the United States, are pursuing this ongoing social problem, as he said, in a similar fashion.

We obviously expect that there will be challenges. There will be opportunities for the courts to interpret this legislation, as they have. We are, in fact, responding to the Supreme Court decision.

To those who suggest that we should go back to the courts in a proactive way and somehow consult them again, I would suggest that it would leave people more vulnerable, in the void and absence of a Criminal Code section that would protect people. That would take time and it would only result in further advice that we have already received from the court in the Bedford decision.

[Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, September 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, this is a very serious issue where vulnerable people are at risk. That is the reason we are moving post-haste to bring this legislation to fruition, so that the Criminal Code would afford those protections. It would allow not only those who find themselves in prostitution but those who support them to move forward in a way that will improve their lives.

That is why we are moving in this direction. We have had numerous debates. We had the opportunity at the committee to hear from the community and individuals, those most affected, in bringing forward their voice in a meaningful way.

As far as the constitutionality goes, we have an obligation that we are not going to shirk in the government with respect to ensuring that those protections are there. We, of course, take expert advice from the Department of Justice. We have officials there who are very well versed in the application of the charter. I would certainly rely on that advice in suggesting that this legislation is constitutionally sound.

[Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, September 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite may be a semi-talented musician; but I am not sure about his acting ability. This member accuses people of insults, but he is the daily court jester in that regard.

The reality is that the bill—