Peter MacKay

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, June 18th, 2014]

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.

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, June 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I know I will be here. I am on House duty.

I would ask the hon. member about the time, not that long ago, when they could not even raise 15 members from their entire caucus to stand in the House. As a result, that occasion and another occasion actually had consequences for them, because their leader then had to go before a committee and talk about some of the illegal activities of their party, some of the illegal exercises they were going through to defraud taxpayers of money. They used taxpayer money for partisan activities, to send out flyers and to fund offices outside of areas where they actually had electoral support.

Perhaps the member would like to respond and tell us why she does not want to show up to work? Why does she and her caucus not want to be here to actually debate important issues like victims rights?

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, June 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am always proud to be here to support government legislation, bills that have been introduced through my department. Bill C-32, as the member knows, is a very important piece of legislation pertaining to victims rights, which he has now clearly indicated his party is supporting. I believe that may be the case with the Liberal Party as well.

I note that the bill has been debated for five days. There have been hours devoted to the opportunity for members of the opposition, as well as government members, to rise in this place and clearly put on the record new ideas and constructive suggestions that might add to the bill.

The member speaks of representative democracy. He would know that time allocation motions have been used throughout the history of this place. He would also know that we now have an opportunity to send the bill on to committee, where we can actually hear from Canadians. In addition to the 308 members of Parliament, we would have an opportunity to hear from Canadians and organizations interested in advancing victims' rights. That is what the bill is about. We need to get it into place. We need to secure it in legislation, so that those rights would actually extend and protect victims in Canada today.

[Justice, June 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, there is no war. The Prime Minister clearly said that he intends to respect the letter and the spirit of the Supreme Court ruling.

Let us be very clear. Mr. Justice Mainville is an eminently qualified Quebec jurist, with 33 years as a member of the Quebec bar. I think that is more than the member opposite. Under section 3 of the Judges Act, he is eminently qualified and eligible to join the Quebec Court of Appeal. I do not know what the member opposite has against judges serving on the supreme court of her province.

[Privacy, June 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where quoting exactly from the Supreme Court becomes creative reading, but let me note that upon the conviction of Mr. Spencer for possession of child pornography, the Supreme Court confirmed that neither PIPEDA nor the Criminal Code voluntary disclosure provision, re-enacted in Bill C-13, gives police the legal authority to access subscriber information related to the Internet protocol address.

This is exactly what we have been saying. This is why we are not only bringing in provisions to protect people from bullying online, but we are also giving the police the ability to police the Internet and ensure that the law is being respected, and balancing that with privacy rights.

[Privacy, June 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the actual Supreme Court decision, paragraph 73. It is a declaratory provision that confirms the existing common law powers of police officers to make enquiries as indicated by the fact that the section begins with the phrase “for a greater certainty”. That is exactly what we have been saying. It is the same provision of Bill C-13.

Here is another interesting quote:

—our ability, with these amendments, to give additional tools to our police and prosecutors around what are cyber crimes. Some of that is cyber bullying...but it also expands our ability to deal with child pornography over the Internet. It would give some additional tools to the police for that purpose....

Who said that? The member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

[Privacy, June 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to do it. In fact, it is very important, as the member has pointed out, that we respect privacy but at the same time allow the police to do their important work.

I remind the member and this House that the decision in Spencer was a child pornography case in which the Supreme Court in fact upheld the conviction on the possession and sent the distribution charge back for retrial. With respect to that charge, we will wait to see what happens.

Regarding Bill C-13, the elements of this bill remain before Parliament. We will respect the Supreme Court's decision. We also believe that there are very compelling reasons to proceed forward and to ensure that we are putting the most protection in the hands of the police as far as their ability to enforce the law is concerned.

[Justice, June 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should know, as I believe he was here, the Prime Minister said clearly yesterday that the appointment of Mr. Justice Mainville to the Appeal Court of Quebec has nothing to do with the opening at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court opening of course is not available until November of this year, and in fact there has been no process undertaken to date with respect to the replacement of Mr. LeBel.

I ask that the hon. member look forward to the future with optimism. We have a full complement of judges representing the province of Quebec. We are very aware of the need to keep that complement, and that is exactly what we will do.

[Justice, June 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have already clearly answered that question, as has the Prime Minister. Mr. Justice Mainville has been appointed to the Court of Appeal of Quebec. This has nothing to do with the Supreme Court of Canada.

I must admit, however, that the justice critic for the NDP from Quebec seems to be siding with a downtown Toronto lawyer who appears to be trying to block and limit the pool of jurists who are available to be appointed to superior courts in the province of Quebec.

[Justice, June 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, of course we are doing no such thing, as the Prime Minister has already said, and as I repeated yesterday. It had nothing to do with the Supreme Court of Canada. It had everything to do with the appeal court of Quebec. That is what I said in the House. That is what I said outside the House.

Mr. Justice Mainville is an eminent jurist. He is someone who is highly qualified and eligible to take up his position as an appeal court judge in the member's province of Quebec.