Peter MacKay

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

Mr. Speaker, certainly it is never the intent of any government, I would suggest, that it result in litigation. We, of course, have a very substantial team of individuals at the Department of Justice who review bills, look at their constitutionality, and look for charter compliance.

Returning to where we are and why we want to move this debate forward and get the bill to committee, the days and time are limited. We need to move legislation through the House of Commons rather than railing against the moon. I do not know why members would not want to embrace this opportunity. As was mentioned, there have been previous iterations of this bill. Private members, including members of the NDP, have brought forward bills that embraced the spirit of this legislation.

Now is an opportunity to put partisanship aside and simply move a bill forward that is for the betterment of our country, in particular for the protection of young people who are affected by cyberbullying. Rather than engage in this partisan debate, let us move this bill through the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, the very simple and practical answer is that, while we sit here tonight discussing this issue, the world is moving ahead in terms of technology. Canada is lagging in its ability to police the Internet. There has been an explosion of activity on the Internet, we know, some of which is very detrimental to young people.

Three days of debate have been allocated. There will be, even as a result of this procedure, two more days of debate on the subject matter. There is, of course, the opportunity to appear at committee, as the member is entitled to do as a member of the House of Commons; so ample debate and talk has taken place. It is time for action. It is time to move this bill forward, enact the legislation, and protect the youth of this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that we proceeded in this matter in good faith, expecting that the bill would have ample discussion before the House of Commons. There would be an opportunity for members to speak, and there have been opportunities. As has been noted, some 13 members have already voiced their opinions on the bill. There was an indication and a discussion, I am assuming, that took place among the House leaders. I a former House leader.

I do not make the decision as to how we proceed in this matter. We proceeded in a way in which we felt we could expeditiously move the bill through the House and get it to committee, a place where witnesses, experts, could then have their say. Then the House, of course, will have the bill return.

Therefore, we have presented the bill in the usual fashion. We have proceeded in a way that we hoped would result in co-operation in moving it toward committee. Unfortunately, that failed. We find it necessary to use this particular process, now, to get the bill to committee for the purposes of protecting and promoting public safety in the area of cyberbullying, as I said.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, for his question is a very important one about the consultation. It does go to the sense of urgency and the sense of priority that we place on the bill. We not only met with those in the country who are affected by this particular scourge of cyberbullying, including family members, but we of course consulted with police, with academics, and with individuals who have specific knowledge of the technical aspects required to enforce this new law.

To return to the question, the families, in particular, and the victims and young people in the country who are affected by cyberbullying need to know that this is being given priority by all members of the House, that we will move the bill to committee, and that we will have an opportunity to ultimately enact a law that is designed to protect people and prevent victimization by cyberbullying.

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend has partly answered her own question; she just said there have been 13 speakers. I indicated at the time that we wanted, not only time in the House, which is of course important, but time to get the bill to committee.

That is the reality. In order for bills to progress, and the member has been here for some time, they have to go to committee. That is where we get in-depth study, witnesses, and we have an opportunity to delve into the detail, as opposed to the toing and froing, and often the partisan digression, that occurs in debate.

Members had the opportunity to talk about Bill C-13. I am sure we are all very much looking forward to expert witnesses appearing before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Their knowledge with respect to the bill will also provide a broader perspective for a more informed debate.

We have an opportunity to move this bill forward and send it to committee for study.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to finish my response to a point that was raised in question period on a point of order. I am simply responding.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his tantrum, I mean his question.

However, before I answer his question, on a point of order, I want to clarify at the earliest opportunity an answer that I gave in response to a question from the member for Charlottetown that became the subject of a point of order by the member for Mount Royal.

I have enormous respect for that member. The member for Mount Royal is in fact a predecessor minister of justice. He has contributed greatly to this place throughout his career, as an educator, a litigator, and an advocate.

For clarity, I wish to ensure that my answer did not imply that the Liberal government of the day “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—

[Justice, March 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have no idea why the member is insisting on the government examining the use of the notwithstanding clause, unless it is based on the fact that it was his government, his party, that was only one who ever used it. Maybe the member has a propensity for the use of the notwithstanding clause.

With respect to how we have treated veterans in this country, I want to commend the minister and his predecessors, as well as the defence minister, for the outstanding contributions they have made, with almost $5 billion in enhanced support for Canada's veterans.

We are extremely proud of those men and women who do so much for Canadians each and every day.

[Justice, March 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the government plans to appoint a new Supreme Court justice. We have to review the nominations in order to choose the right person.

With regard to the issue presented by the leader of the third party, it must be understood that we have already voted on this matter in the House of Commons. The government does not intend to reopen that debate.

[Justice, March 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday in the House, having received extensive input from the Province of Quebec, from major players, including members of the House who took part in an all-party vetting of candidates for the Supreme Court, and having sought outside advice from former Supreme Court of Canada justices, as well as a renowned constitutional expert, Peter Hogg, we proceeded with the best intent to fill this Quebec vacancy on the Supreme Court of Canada.

We obviously intend to fill that position. We have now received a decision from the Supreme Court of Canada that we are examining, and we will proceed post-haste.