Peter MacKay

[Public Safety, March 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister for Public Safety has said numerous times and others who are learned on the bill, they see the legislation for what it is. It is there to protect Canadians. It is there to do so in a balanced way.

With respect to the powers that are vested in judges, the Canadian Bar Association has somehow indicated that this is putting judges in a compromised position. This is what judges do each and every day in a pre-emptive way when they examine warrant applications. This is exactly what judges should be doing in a pre-emptive way.

This is an undertaking judges at the federal court will do that we believe is necessary to enhance the protection of Canadians.

[Public Safety, March 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows very well, our government intends to continue to hold consultations in this parliamentary process.

This is obviously a very important bill that has far-reaching implications. This is why we are waiting for the process to conclude with regard to the ongoing testimony from experts who are appearing before this very important parliamentary committee on the bill. We will await full input, including the input of the hon. member.

[Public Safety, March 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, despite the hyperbole and the hyperventilating, we are doing no such thing. We are listening to experts. We are listening to many experts, including the Bar Association, but let us be clear on the role of judges here. There is no greater authority than to involve the judges, to preview some of the applications that are made with words.

By the way, members of the Bar Association here and around the country would know that judges do this every day in the exercise of their authority.

That is exactly what I would ask the hon. member and members of the Bar Association to revisit.

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 13th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the information requested is not readily available and would require an extensive manual search of all records. It is therefore not feasible to produce a response within the time period allotted.

[Justice, March 12th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the life means life act would ensure our public safety by ensuring that Canada's most violent offenders would face mandatory life imprisonment without parole.

The bill would help rebuild public confidence, would bring certainty to our criminal justice system, and also would ensure that those who have lost loved ones, as victims of the most extreme acts of violence, are not subjected to repeated and hopeless parole hearings.

Consistent with our Criminal Code, our sentencing principles, and the constitution, this bill would remove the worst murderers from Canadian society permanently.

[Justice, February 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the member certainly understands that we must have a non-partisan judicial system. Judges are picked on the basis of their qualifications and merit. We are happy to continue that practice. I have confidence in the competence of the judicial system in New Brunswick, or anywhere else in Canada.

[Public Safety, February 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, we understand full well that over 80% of Canadians support these new measures. We understand full well that these are practical, common sense measures designed to give police greater ability to protect Canadians in our communities through measures that are thoroughly requiring judicial oversight, through measures that will be given ample opportunity to be reviewed by Parliament.

However, the reality is that we have a pressing need to bring forward these measures. There will be debate in the House. There will be scrutiny at committee. There will be testimony of expert witnesses to give their perspective on this important bill, but we need the bill now.

[Public Safety, February 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, let us look at this in the current context of things. This bill is aimed specifically at protecting Canadians from the evolving threat of terrorism. One only needs to turn on the nightly news to see what is happening around the world, and what has in fact happened in our own country.

We will have debate in the House. The bill will move before a committee where we will hear from experts on the subject of terrorism. However, we want, on behalf of Canadians, to put more tools in the hands of our police forces to allow them to protect our country with proper oversight.

[Public Safety, February 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, that is so completely untrue and completely offensive and completely far off base when it comes to what we are attempting to do as a government through this legislation, to enhance safety, protection, and security for all Canadians.

Security does not discriminate. We are attempting to elevate the security of our country from a very real and evolving threat. The member opposite decides, throughout this debate, to somehow scare people about what the security forces are doing rather than what the terrorists are posing as a threat to our country.

[Public Safety, February 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I think the one individual the member is referencing kind of united with himself a long time ago.

Oversight with respect to judges is something that I think all members present would be quick to embrace. The fact is that these powers, extraordinary though they might be, are necessary in the current threat environment. The judicial oversight that comes at the front end of the process, as opposed to political oversight after the fact, which is what is being suggested by the members opposite, we think is preferable.