Peter MacKay

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, February 4th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we are certainly not the first Canadian government to use this procedure.

It is also evident that neither the hon. member who asked the question nor I were privy to these discussions that took place at the House leaders' meeting. However, there has been a clear indication that this bill is starting to drag. After nine appearances here in the House, and a similar number in the committee, we want to move this bill forward.

What is the urgency? The urgency is clear. If the member takes the time to read the bill, and I hope that he has, he will see that these are real improvements in our criminal justice system. The consultations that took place both inside and outside the House clearly indicate that these are positive, proactive changes that victims, in particular, have been waiting for, for decades. Those who work in the criminal justice system embrace these as positive changes.

What is the urgency? The question that I will turn around is, why would we delay further what we know would be a positive and proactive change in our criminal justice system, for which we have seen support coming from the opposition?

The short answer is that we are running out of runway. There are only a certain number of sitting days left in this Parliament. We have new legislation still being presented, like the bill with respect to terrorism. We have a budget that we have to get through.

This is a cornerstone piece of legislation, not simply for the government, but for Parliament. It is important to note and stress again that members on the opposition side say that they are supporting it, so why would we delay it?

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, February 4th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, democracy is prevailing. Democracy is working quite well.

In addition to having led a federal party in the House, I was also a House leader of that party. I sat on the opposition benches where the hon. member finds himself today. I sat there and I sat through many House leaders' meetings where similar discussions took place.

It is a bit hypocritical, and the member is standing on shifting sands to suggest that this is somehow new procedure and practice that is being used with time allocation. Let me assure the member that his party and the Liberal government, when it was in office, were not shy of using this procedure to move legislation forward. I was here.

That is what we are trying to do. Let us be clear. This is a bill that really is non-partisan, perhaps more than any other bill I have seen, in what it would bring about in terms of the changes to our criminal justice system. Beyond the procedural wrangling, it is interesting to note that there has been indication from opposition parties of support for this legislation.

We are literally, to use the proverbial term, ragging the puck at this point. Let us move the bill forward. Let us bring this good law to the country and allow the committee to do its important work in the Senate in the way that it already has, where it had, I am told, no fewer than nine meetings. This includes the time that we have had debated here on the floor of the House.

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, February 4th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member. I really understand her perspective on this issue.

The most important thing is that she is right: there were lots of consultations. Throughout the process, we had plenty of opportunities to examine this bill. We heard from over 500 stakeholders on this issue through online consultations and in-person consultations held across Canada before the bill was drafted.

My friend is absolutely correct in suggesting that there has been massive input and examination, including before a parliamentary committee. I want to express my thanks to her and members of committee for delving deeply into the provisions of this legislation. It will have a profound impact on the Canadian criminal justice system, a positive impact I would suggest.

I believe she and members of her party are prepared to support this legislation. Rather than procedural wrangling, rather than dragging out the debate, which is what appears to be happening after eight days of debate on the bill, we want to move it forward in the process, including giving the Senate the opportunity to have its good input and eyes on it and then, most importantly, let us have the legislation take effect in Canada.

[Public Safety, February 4th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation does include tools that would allow the authorities to take practical action regarding radicalization. That includes, of course, the take-down of material that might be seen as promoting or actively engaging terrorists.

In addition, there are already in place abilities for our security forces to engage with the public, with groups that might be subject or prone to radicalization. We have cultural round tables. There are a number of ways in which outreach helps us in this regard.

With respect to resources, we have consistently increased resources, while members of the NDP have consistently opposed those increases.

[Public Safety, February 4th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, there is oversight. We believe that the oversight in place is consistent. It is third-party, non-partisan, independent expert oversight that is required in this instance. Those key powers that exist in the legislation are subject to that oversight, in addition to the judicial oversight and the oversight of the Attorney General or prosecutors working with the police. We believe that is sufficient. We believe that is the way this bill would protect Canadians and, as the Leader of the Opposition said, strike that balance between security and the need to protect Canadians' rights.

[Justice, February 3rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, who is a true champion for women.

This law is having a direct impact on prostitution in Canada. Hamilton police recently rescued a missing 15-year-old girl from exploitation as a prostitute. Her pimp was charged twice under this new law. Durham region's human trafficking unit rescued a 16-year-old and her pimp is now facing charges as well, charges that were not previously available. We are proud of this impact of the new law.

I congratulate our law enforcement members everywhere, who are working hard each and every day to keep our communities and streets safe.

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, due to the confidentiality of state-to-state communications, the Department of Justice does not confirm nor deny any requests for legal assistance by other countries.

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 26th, 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, December 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, impaired driving is still the number one criminal cause of death in our country. It is a very serious issue.

He has alluded to the fact that many of us, including myself, have met with members of MADD Canada, as well as other justice groups that are advocating for changes to the Criminal Code. We have contemplated seriously the changes that are required. We hope to have legislation forthcoming.

[Justice, December 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that the underlying premise of this bill is to protect critical infrastructure.

There are instances, of course, where individuals who have attempted to steal wire that was high voltage, for example, have died as a result. There is a deterrent element to this as well.

The bill itself will receive examination before this House and before committees. The member will have ample opportunity to express herself, as she does. When it comes to the constitutionality of this bill, we may disagree. That is the premise of democracy. She is entitled to that opinion.