Peter MacKay

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not the government House leader. I am not privy to those discussions that take place when it comes to the legislative agenda.

The member is relatively new to this House and perhaps was not here in previous parliaments when the Liberal Party was in government. I was there. I sat where he is sitting today on the opposition benches and saw this method to move legislative forward quite frequently used by his party when it was in government. There is an element of hypocrisy in throwing the allegation that we are the only government that has ever used this method to move legislation through.

However, I come back to the principle of why I believe it is necessary to do so, and that is to put in place a legislative framework within the Criminal Code that will in fact protect people, vulnerable people, individuals who find themselves caught in this terrible dilemma of being in the sex trade where other opportunities, if they were afforded to them, would give them a much safer, healthier place to be.

That is what I think is most important about the bill. It is coupled with programs that will in fact help people to exit prostitution, afford them educational opportunities, training opportunities, housing, child care, the type of support that we believe leads to a healthier society, and certainly for those individuals it is an attempt to bring them to a much better life.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is the usual feigned outrage from the member. I will tell her what I have already said to the House, which is that we believe this legislation is constitutional and is charter-proof, of course. We believe the legislation answers the questions that were put forward and the issues that were identified quite clearly by the majority in Bedford. It was a decision that put the government in a position where we had to respond with this bill.

We have done extensive consultation. We have been engaged in an active and genuine outreach to arrive at this place. We do rely on the very capable advice coming from lawyers within the Department of Justice. Quite frankly, I am surprised that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands would be so critical and so doubting of the advice coming from professional public servants, lawyers, and members of a fraternity of which she is also a member, and that she would suggest that this advice was somehow not being followed by the Department of Justice.

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

M. Speaker, we have to move forward with this bill. It is necessary and it will protect people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member sometimes thinks he is auditioning for Yuk Yuk's or Just for Laughs, but this is a very serious issue. It is an issue that involves young people in particular in this country who are being exploited. It involves aspects of human trafficking. We heard testimony with respect to the extreme violence that often accompanies prostitution, the drug addiction, the extreme poverty, and the horrible conditions in which young people find themselves, women and girls generally, associated with the vulnerability of prostitution.

The member suggests that we somehow just talk about this further, that we should have the debate go on and on. Sadly, that has been the demand coming from the opposition, that we continue to have these debates for days on end. They put up the entire caucus to speak to the legislation. We do not have that time. We cannot afford that error in judgment to hold back fixing this situation that leaves people vulnerable.

I know the member is chirping. He is shaking his head. I can hear it rattling from here.

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

Mr. Speaker, we know the member for Charlottetown is a stranger to the truth on a lot of the questions he has put forward. He is very prone to hyperbole.

He has put forward the suggestion that there has not been ample time to debate or consult on the bill. We have been given very strict timelines by the Supreme Court in the Bedford decision. In fact, he is factually incorrect in suggesting we have until December 20. We actually have until November 20, because the legislation has a 30-day coming into effect period. We are working on very tight timelines. I would suggest the bill is unique in that regard, in that we were given a very static timeframe in which to work.

With great credit to members of the justice committee both in the House and the Senate, extraordinary work was done over the summer months. Members and senators came back to Ottawa. They had very meaningful hearings in which members of stakeholder groups from across the country were given the opportunity to participate. I have already mentioned the online consultation. To my knowledge, it was the largest in the history of the Department of Justice. There were 3,100 participants in that online consultation.

Yes, it is certainly a topical and in some cases divisive issue. We have taken great strides to get it right. We did so by hearing from persons most affected, those most vulnerable, those most at risk of leaving a legislative gap. That is why we are now moving forward with what is a very informed bill, keeping in mind that amendments have already been made to reflect that input.

That is the reason we are moving forward. We have heard from experts. We have heard from Senate and House parliamentarians. Now is the time to proceed with this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's comments and questions.

I understand the Bedford decision very well. I also understand that this is an opportunity for the government to protect vulnerable people.

That is exactly the situation we are in. There is a sense of urgency to have the legislation in place to fill the gap that was created by the Supreme Court in Bedford, in striking down sections of the Criminal Code. More importantly, there is a necessity on the human side to put in place protections for those vulnerable people.

If my friend is asking me if I believe the vast majority of those persons in prostitution being prostituted are victims, yes, I do. Based on the overwhelming evidence and testimony that we heard from committee meetings this summer, from the 3,100 participants in the online consultation, from personal round table meetings and interactions I had with persons in the trade, police, counsellors, and persons working within the justice system, yes, I do believe that.

Do I believe the legislation is constitutionally sound? Do I believe it is good public policy? Do I believe, coupled with the programs that come with the legislation, it will make the necessary difference in people's lives to help them find a better path? Yes, I do.

[Public Safety, September 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this is a horrific case. Our thoughts are with the Vermeersch family.

After years of soft-on-crime policies from the Liberal government, Canadians can now count on our government to re-establish Canada as a country where those who break the law are punished with penalties that match the crime.

To date, our government has presented over 30 justice bills. We made it a priority to protect our most vulnerable, our children, by cracking down on child sex predators. We have introduced more consecutive and mandatory minimum sentences for serious violent crime. We ended house arrest for child sex offences. We got rid of the faint hope clause, raised the age of consent, and gave more protection for victims.

Serious violent crime deserves serious time. That is what our government is delivering.

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, September 22nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the comments of my friend opposite.

I particularly appreciate her expressions of condolences and compassion for the victims of cyberbullying. She was right to say those things. At the same time, she said she was taking a non-partisan approach to the bill.

Much of what my friend says is undeniably true. This is a complex bill. It does go very much beyond simply the issue of cyberbullying and the government's efforts to respond to this very real problem that has affected the lives of so many people in Canada, particularly young people.

However, in her reading of Spencer, she somehow would leave the House, and Canadians, with the impression that this creates new police powers or this is somehow going to lead to further breaches of privacy. Nothing could be further from the truth. What Spencer did in fact was confirm the fact that no new powers were going to be bestowed upon the police. What we are attempting to do is to very much ensure that the police do have, with lawful access, the ability to protect people online, to protect seniors, to protect young people, to protect businesses from flagrant abuses or breaches of privacy that allow criminality to happen online. The bill is very much an attempt to modernize those practices and also to ensure that people's privacy is protected.

We, of course, will respect the Spencer decision. We believe that the bill does meet the balance that is called for in the effort to give police powers to investigate, but at the same time to protect privacy rights. We believe, as well, that there is still ample opportunity to examine the bill in a meaningful way.

I do appreciate the fact that we have had a debate in the House of Commons now and that there will be debate in the other place. However, it is important that we continue to move forward and make progress in this critical area where people's lives are literally at stake.

[Justice, September 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as always, the member is mistaken.

In fact, this government has been more open, more inclusive, more transparent than any when it comes to the process and inclusion of all of the individuals within the justice system for the selection of judges. Of course we consulted with justice ministers at the provincial level, Supreme Court judges and bar societies. We have even consulted lawyers like the member himself when it comes to these important decisions.

The member can be sure and Canadians certainly have assurances that this government will proceed, as we always have, with making good appointments based on legal merit, which is, of course, the executive decision of government.

[Public Safety, September 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Souris—Moose Mountain makes a very good point. It is clear that the Liberal leader believes that terrorists with dual citizenship should keep their Canadian passports.

This government works to protect Canadians, both at home and abroad, and believes that we should be tough on terrorists. It seems the Liberal leader is worried about a two-tiered system. We will revoke the citizenship of dual nationals who are convicted of these very grave acts of terrorism against our country. If the Liberal leader does not understand the difference between law-abiding Canadians and terrorists, as the old saying goes, he is clearly not up to the job.