Peter MacKay

[Government Spending, April 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this particular organization, this Courts Administration Service, is an arm's length organization. In fact, it is done that way so it will ensure greater judicial independence.

What has happened here is that the government, in respecting taxpayer dollars, has had an open, fair, transparent bidding process. What we see now is a situation where it is before a tribunal. It is being adjudicated, and we are not going to talk about something that is before the courts.

[Privilege, March 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly rebut the presumption that the hon. member for Charlottetown is presenting to the House, that I have deliberately misled the House in any way.

In fact, as he himself in his presentation has reminded the House, I rose at the first opportunity to clarify what was said, as is clearly reflected in Hansard, that “…I wish to ensure that my answer did not imply that the Liberal government of the day...” used the word 'invoked', repeating the words that were put on the record by the member for Mount Royal who rose on the initial point of order yesterday and was ruled out of order by the Speaker.

My answer goes on to say with respect to “invoked”, “…which is the word that the member used, the notwithstanding clause, but threatened to use it. Members may recall that former prime minister Paul Martin, and certainly the member for Mount Royal—”. At that time I was interrupted by the Speaker, not yourself, another Speaker in the chair, and reminded that I was not, in his view, permitted to continue with my response. I then again tried to complete my statement on the record and was prevented from doing so by the chair.

What I was referring to obviously in that clarification was the use of the notwithstanding clause at that time, the threatened use, the political use, which was clearly the case in 2004. I am quoting now from a CBC report that says, Prime Minister Paul Martin says he would use the Constitution's notwithstanding clause if the Supreme Court rules that churches must perform gay marriages.” It was in that context.

He went on to say when asked by a reporter whether he would use the notwithstanding clause, “Oh, yes I would”.

That was the reference that I sought to clarify when I rose in this Chamber yesterday. That clause is in the Constitution by virtue of the Liberal government of the day. The member's question to the department was answered as he mentioned. He referenced the fact that he had sought information from the Department of Justice with respect to section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: “…what is the current policy of the government, particularly the Department of Justice, about the use or invocation of Section 33…?”

The answer that he received is quite clear: “The Department of Justice has no policy on the use or invocation of section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms commonly referred to as the “notwithstanding clause…”.

The member then opines and complains that there was no answer to the second part of his question, which goes on, “…how many times has the government directed, suggested, complained, contemplated or requested an analysis, examination or consideration...”. If there is no policy, why would the government or the Department of Justice then respond to the second part about how many times it was used or contemplated to be used?

The member for Charlottetown cannot have it both ways. He cannot ask how many times the government has contemplated using it. He has been told that there is no policy in this regard. Now he is suggesting that there was an incomplete answer given to him by the department.

The clarification that I sought yesterday and the clarification today is the political use, the threatened use, of the notwithstanding clause by the Liberal government of the day. It was not the current government. It was not this minister. It was the government of the party of which the member opposite is a member.

I would suggest that my clarification was provided in earnest yesterday. It was in response to the attempted question of privilege raised by the member's colleague, the member for Mount Royal. I rose at the earliest possible opportunity to provide clarification. There was no deliberate use. I specifically said that I did not use the word “invoked”, and that is the key word that the member for Mount Royal tried to attribute to me in his attempted point of order yesterday.

I hope that provides the necessary explanation for you, Mr. Speaker, to make the proper ruling, which is to find against the member for Charlottetown.

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, March 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we will have ample time to look at the bill at committee to have further debate. Of course, it will be examined in the other place as well. The hon. member mischaracterizes everything that I have said, as she has on occasion. I have in no way suggested that members should not have input into the bill. They are having input into the bill as we stand here. We are discussing the bill.

Again, I hark back to the reality that this subject matter has been before the House, not only in this bill but also in previous bills. There have been numerous efforts to move forward in this area.

In fact, I quote my friend from Beauséjour, a Liberal member, who spoke about the necessity and the support that they expressed in 2009 when he said that the “old tools, the old laws and regulations, and common law around search warrants, lawful access…haven't kept up with the technology that organized crime is using”. I agree with him. We have to be able to give the police at least the ability to be on par with some of the nefarious activity happening on the Internet.

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, March 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned, we have seen various iterations of the bill before this place, for years now. We have seen private member's bills and this is, of course, not to diminish in any way the contributions of members opposite or members of this party. We want to bring about the ability to act, to deal with this important issue.

I came to this place almost 18 years ago from working in the criminal justice system as a prosecutor. We know that the issues faced by young people in particular are increasingly complex. The use of the Internet is a wonderful thing if it is used in a positive direction, but we know that is not always the case. We know that the Internet has, in some cases, been a facilitator, an enabler of criminal activity.

We have to keep pace with that change and that modernization of technology. That is what the bill does. The time for talk is past. It is time to move. It is time to get expert input on the legislation, get it on the books, give the police the tools they need to protect people, to prevent the carnage and harm resulting from cyberbullying.

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, March 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that if it means saving lives, yes.

Bill C-13 combines a proposed new offence, non-consensual distribution of intimate images, to address cyberbullying, along with judicially authorized tools to help police and prosecutors investigate not only the proposed new offence but also other, existing offences.

The member is right; we are committed to policing the Internet via judicially authorized authority that involves electronic evidence.

The elements of this bill are intricately connected. Why would we pass a law and then go about bringing in other legislation to allow enforcement? This bill is in concert with the same theme of helping to protect people from abuse on the Internet.

We are proceeding in this fashion to give police the tools to do their important work.

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, March 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I find the hon. member's position and question quite paradoxical.

Obviously, we are moving forward in this fashion because we do sense urgency. We are hearing from police. We are hearing from families. We are hearing from individuals, and, formerly, from individual members of the opposition who said that we have to get this bill in place, we have to have the laws enhanced, and that police need these tools. Our communities and our schools are vulnerable because of cyberbullying. That is the sense of urgency.

As to who takes credit for it or who gets to speak, the sense of urgency is very real. This is not something that has been invented by the government. Members should talk to people in their communities, individuals on the street who want to see tougher laws on cyberbullying. I expect that people will say that they do not want us to debate it more in the House of Commons but want us to pass the law, have it in place, and give police the tools to enforce the law.

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, March 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, no. I do not feel inclined to hear from the member.

I feel inclined to hear more from experts. Many people have stated that they want this bill to move forward. The member talked about 2012. I am going to go back further, to 2009, when Bill C-46 was brought before the House of Commons, and Bill C-51 in 2010. There was an individual at that time who seemed to think there was an urgency to move bills forward. He said that the “bill is quite overdue in terms of when it should have been on the law books of this country”.

Those amendments have been planned for some time. There was a sense of urgency then, coming from the NDP. It was the hon. member who was then justice critic and an hon. member of the NDP.

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, March 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the relevant, pertinent question. What we are doing in essence is empowering police to investigate and police the Internet, but to do so with judicial oversight, by virtue of a warrant. This differs markedly from previous incarnations of this bill.

The bill would allow the police to seek out the offending material and those responsible. We have seen some very tragic cases. As the member is aware—with Amanda Todd in his own province and Rehtaeh Parsons on the east coast—the implications of this type of intimidation and blackmail, the type of very offensive material that can be used to extort and intimidate individuals, can be loss of life. It can result in some very uncomfortable and disturbing situations.

We want to give the police the ability to stop, to intercede, and in some cases to remove that material. The bill would empower them to do that. It would, of course, require a holistic approach. It would not be just legislation. It requires everyone to get involved.

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, March 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his rant.

What we are trying to do is legislate in an area that is very important. My colleague, the member for Gatineau, said this in her opening speech, when we first debated this bill; and of course we did debate the bill. To suggest that members are being muzzled is wholly inaccurate. Members are here speaking. No one is being muzzled.

Here is what the member for Gatineau said. “I think that the minister wants as many members as possible to support his bill”. She is right.

“I therefore hope that he will be open to allowing us to study this aspect [of the bill very] carefully”. We are not studying it here.

She went on to say, “We will have some serious arguments to make in committee about these aspects of the bill”; so let us get it to committee. We are not studying it. We are jawing about it. Let us move it to committee and actually get down to the nitty-gritty of getting the bill right.

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, March 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I invite the hon. member to take part in the debate, as she is doing here and will have an opportunity to do. There are two more days.

I did not make up the composition of the House in the last election. That was done by the wisdom of the Canadian people. She may not have representation as a party in the House of Commons. That, again, is a reality of the electoral outcome of the last election campaign. When we have an opportunity to move an important piece of legislation like this through the House, I would suggest it is not a partisan issue. It is an issue for which all members have expressed support in principle.

I am going to make a statement with which I think members may agree. Let us hear from experts on the bill. We all may have opinions. The hon. member from British Columbia might have a strong opinion on this. I would suggest that on a bill of this nature, technical as it is, we should hear from the experts. Let us hear from family members, police, and those who are affected by the explosion of activity on the Internet. The need to move this bill forward and the need for action is now.