This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2013.
Vic Toews Conservative
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill.
This enactment amends the Witness Protection Program Act to, among other things,
(a) provide for the designation of a provincial or municipal witness protection program so that certain provisions of that Act apply to such a program;
(b) authorize the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to coordinate, at the request of an official of a designated provincial or municipal program, the activities of federal departments, agencies and services in order to facilitate a change of identity for persons admitted to the designated program;
(c) add prohibitions on the disclosure of information relating to persons admitted to designated provincial and municipal programs, to the means and methods by which witnesses are protected and to persons who provide or assist in providing protection;
(d) specify the circumstances under which disclosure of protected information is nevertheless permitted;
(e) exempt a person from any liability or other punishment for stating that they do not provide or assist in providing protection to witnesses or that they do not know that a person is protected under a witness protection program;
(f) expand the categories of witnesses who may be admitted to the federal Witness Protection Program to include persons who assist federal departments, agencies or services that have a national security, national defence or public safety mandate and who may require protection as a result;
(g) allow witnesses in the federal Witness Protection Program to end their protection voluntarily;
(h) extend the period during which protection may, in an emergency, be provided to a person who has not been admitted to the federal Witness Protection Program; and
(i) make a consequential amendment to another Act.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB
What? Back and forth on that side. Is that the way we are doing this?
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to understand how the person who is debating will be going.
The Deputy Speaker
I have the point of order by the member for Crowfoot. The standing practice in the House is that the opposition parties get the priority of time almost exclusively for this 30 minutes of debate. That is the practice. That has been the tradition in the House for many years. One or two members get recognized from the government side, and that has been the pattern by both the current Speaker and chair occupants and the previous number of Speakers going back 20 years at least.
The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, that is a very important thing to point out. I see the defensiveness of my colleagues on the other side. Not only do they want to shut down debate, and it was their decision to shut down debate, but they want to dominate what little time is left of the opposition's opportunity.
Canadians know what is going on here. The government is mired up to its neck in scandal. The Conservatives appointed Arthur Porter, a criminal, and then because he gave them money, they appointed him to oversee the spy agency of Canada. The justice minister seemed to think Arthur Porter was a great guy when he was giving money. We have the same situation in the Senate.
The Conservatives are doing everything they can to get out of town as quickly as they can and hide out at their cottages for the summer and hope this issue will go away—
The Deputy Speaker
The hon. member for Crowfoot has a point of order.
Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I accept your response in regard to the almost exclusive number of questions, but I would ask that they remain relevant.
What we are debating is time allocation on Bill C-51. On one hand, the NDP wants to talk about certain methods of moving it through when they want to expedite it and, on the other hand, now we are hearing about everything other than Bill C-51.
If we are going to have questions, then they should be questions in regard to the debate and to the bill we are discussing.
The Deputy Speaker
Let me make the determination. The debate that is going on at this point is not exclusively about the bill that is before the House. It is also about the procedure that is being used, the time allocation motion. That is primarily what this debate is supposed to be about. The comments by the member for Timmins—James Bay are in fact very relevant to that part.
The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like it to be also noted that this is an attempt to walk the clock down and I think that every time the government interferes with our right to speak, the clock should be stopped, because this is an attempt to intimidate members of the House.
I will go back to the issue. The issue here is not the bill, because those members do not want to debate the bill. The issue here is their decision for the 37th or 38th time to shut down debate in the House of Commons. The Conservative government does not believe in accountability. The Conservative government will use the tools of power to undermine basic democratic processes. The government will take convicted fraud artists and put them right into the heart of the Prime Minister's Office and use them for advice.
The government is again shutting down the democratic right of the House. The government spies on people like Cindy Blackstock. The government has shut down numerous independent bodies. Whatever happened to the party that promised accountability, that told us that people like Stockwell Day and Deborah Grey represented accountability? Now we have the member for Nepean—Carleton; that is the government's idea of accountability. Now we have Patrick Brazeau; that is their idea of accountability. Now we have Pamela Wallin and Mike Duffy. The government promised to Canadians that it would bring a standard back to government. The government made a promise to Canadians and it broke it.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I hear their defensiveness, Mr. Speaker. They sound almost crazed over there. I know they want to get home, but they are accountable and they cannot shut the House down again to escape accountability.
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
Mr. Speaker, I think all of us want to get home at some time or another, but the point is that I was here until one o'clock this morning. I was here prepared to debate the bills and speak to matters. In fact, I asked questions last night.
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
The member across the way is chirping, as she usually does, but what I would like to say with regard to the issue of accountability is that the member who just spoke promised his constituents that he would vote to abolish the long gun registry. He promised every one of them whenever he could, because he realized it was a contentious matter. However, when he came back to Ottawa he changed his mind, so I do not need any lessons from that individual about accountability.
Let us get to the issue of this particular bill itself.
The Liberals and the New Democrats have supported this legislation at every stage. They have not proposed one amendment, not even a technical amendment. What they want to do is drag out the clock. Then when we say we should add 20 hours of debate to the week, what is their response? No.
Jean-François Larose NDP Repentigny, QC
Mr. Speaker, becoming a member of Parliament was a very proud moment for me.
From the time I was child, I had watched the Hill operate as part of a democratic system. I did not always agree with the debates, but there was certainly a process that commanded a great deal of respect. Since I have been here as a member of Parliament, I must say that I am truly ashamed. I am ashamed to see how things work. I am ashamed of the process. I do not understand.
My question for the minister is quite simple. When did he lose faith in debate and decide it was not important? He is talking about a motion. He has some nerve.
When do the Conservatives ever make any sort of effort? When they decide to control the situation, then things go their way. As far as we are concerned, we want to have an ongoing, constructive debate. We are always prepared to work with the government. Unfortunately, they do not listen to anyone. They cut off debate and rhyme off all sorts of excuses every chance they get.
I would like to understand where the minister is coming from because I no longer understand the government. Personally, I think some therapy is in order—for the government, I should say.
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
Mr. Speaker, I can see how sensitive the members are on the other side. If they will not listen to me, let us listen to the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. What did he say about the bill?
