Bill C-51 (Historical)

Safer Witnesses Act

An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act

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.

Bill C-51—Time Allocation

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

He is their lead critic, as the member for Crowfoot points out.

He said:

Also, of course, we have committed to expediting its passage through the House. We believe it's important legislation. It's something we've been interested in since the time of the Air India inquiry...

They have been on this since the time of the Air India inquiry. What has their response been? Zero amendments.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across the way talked about faith. Something I have faith in is the police forces of our country.

I have a quote from Tom Stamatakis, the president of the Canadian Police Association. He said:

The Canadian Police Association strongly believes that this proposed legislation will enhance the safety and security of front-line law enforcement personnel who are engaged in protective duties.

Unfortunately, the disclosure of identifying details can present a real danger to police personnel themselves as well as their families, and we appreciate the steps being taken today by the government of Canada to address those concerns

He added:

On behalf of over 50,000 law enforcement personnel that we represent across Canada, we ask Parliament to quickly move to adopt this bill.

I wonder if the minister could respond to the necessity. I think there has been a plea. There is agreement in the House that we should pass this bill, but more importantly, there is agreement among the 50,000 law enforcement officers across the country to move this bill forward. It is not because they have something to gain from this, other than their own personal safety and the safety of their families.

I wonder if the minister could speak to the necessity of moving this bill forward quickly so that we can protect the interests, the lives and the safety of over 50,000 law enforcement personnel, as well as their 50,000 families.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the comments, I am not going to get into the specifics of the bill because that is not really the purpose of this discussion.

However, I would note the comments of the Canadian Police Association, which has been very supportive of the initiatives we brought forward as a government. In fact, many of the initiatives we brought forward have been inspired by consultations with the Canadian Police Association and the chiefs of police. We want to thank them very much for that.

Getting back to the comments of the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, he indicated that he had been interested in this file since June 2010, when the Air India commission of inquiry released its report. For three years the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and his colleagues have been working on this file. They have committed to expedite it. They have said that it is very important and it should be expedited. The government has said, “Fine”. The police also want to move this bill quickly. However, the question that comes to me is this: what substantive changes need to be made, while still respecting the principle of expediency that the NDP is advancing here?

There have been zero amendments proposed by the NDP.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, here we are debating a motion for closure just after a very passionate presentation by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands with respect to how these motions for time allocation impact on individual members.

I am a new member of Parliament here, but in my previous career I had occasion to work with the hon. minister when he was general counsel with an insurance company. Back then, one of the principles by which he guided his career was that a negotiated resolution was always better than one imposed.

Given the minister's previous work history, my question for the minister is this: what measures were taken to try to come to a negotiated resolution and try to come to a compromise in terms of debate limits before this draconian measure was imposed yet again?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think that is an important question and one that was very well put.

It is indeed a principle that I have always accepted. We should negotiate when there are differences of opinion in respect to a bill. Mr. Speaker, I think you, as legal counsel, understand the importance of that approach as well.

However, one of the things I found out is that if one side is negotiating and advancing a position and the other side has zero response in terms of objections, it is difficult to negotiate. We can state our position, but when everybody on the other side says that is a great position, then that is the end of the negotiation.

We are not against negotiations, but there has been nothing to negotiate with. There have been no amendments put forward. This is not an issue of the government saying that it does not want to negotiate; this is the other side saying that since 2010 it has wanted this measure to be passed on an expedited basis.

We have waited patiently, but there has been no sound coming from the other side in any substantive amendments. Therefore, we are left with the unsettling feeling that this is not about bona fide negotiations but just an attempt to drag this matter out.

That is my concern here.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it saddens me to speak to a time allocation motion yet again. Earlier, my colleague from Gatineau asked how many of these motions we have had to date. It seems that this the 38th.

The minister is interested in debating this particular bill that we are now studying, but we have to keep in mind that this is the 38th time that the Conservatives have cut debate short in order to give members, on both the opposition and government sides, as little time as possible to discuss the bill before voting. As legislators, the least we can do is be conscientious and effective. The Conservatives do not need to cut debate short every time so that as few people as possible can participate.

I was wondering why the government is using this strategy to limit debate for a 38th time, as though everything were urgent? In some of those 38 cases, there was no urgency.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is not the government itself that has said this is an urgent matter, but the members across the way.

If the members across the way are saying that this is an urgent matter, then the questions become, “What issues need to be determined in the context of this urgency? What needs to be clarified? What needs to be fixed?”

The response of the opposition is a deafening silence. There is nothing in respect of this bill.

I cannot comment on the other times that closure has been invoked in this House, but from my point of view, when I stand up to respond to arguments being made, there has to be some kind of substantive argument. In this case, zero amendments have been proposed.

I have to take the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca at his word that the opposition members want to expedite this, yet everything that I hear them say says they want to drag their feet. They have to explain to the people of Canada that they want to have a vigorous debate about nothing.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as this is not a discussion on Bill C-51 but on yet another time allocation, I have been doing research.

I cannot find any time in the history of the Parliament of Canada when time allocation was used as it was this week, twice in one day. The government is setting a new record, not only for time allocation in general but for the number of times in one week that time allocation has been used on bills in the history of the Parliament of Canada.

I wonder if that is a record of which the hon. minister is proud.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about this specific bill, because that is the one I am focused on.

The people of Canada expect that I will justify why this process is being utilized in this particular case. I have commented very clearly about why it is justified in this case, noting that there has been vigorous debate over no amendments for a long period of time. This bill has been brought forward in committee, and it has resulted in absolutely no amendments.

I know the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is concerned that as an independent member she does not get enough time to speak from time to time. I dispute that. I think the government has brought more to the floor for independence than any government has.

Be that as it may, why would that member want to see a debate over nothing prolonged, knowing that it will have an impact on her future ability to speak in this House?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about what Canadians expect. What the people from Surrey North expect is the opportunity for me to represent them here.

I came to Ottawa two years ago. We learn throughout our lives, and one of the terms I learned under the government is “time allocation”. It took me a few times to figure out what it was. I want Canadians to know that basically it shuts down the ability of the members of Parliament from all across Canada to represent their views.

I see a number of members in here who are from western Canada. I remember when they used to talk about how they were going to bring transparency and accountability to Ottawa. What I see here is exactly the reverse.

I see a government that wants to run away. The Conservatives are fearful today. They want to run away back to their ridings so they do not have to face the scandals that are plaguing them here, the scandals of the Senate, the CSIS scandals and other scandals that are taking place.

My question to the hon. Minister of Public Safety is this: what are they afraid of? Why are you afraid of debating this in the House of Commons and of giving members of Parliament opportunities for debate?

[The Deputy Speaker]

I would direct members to direct their questions and comments to the Chair, not to each other.

The hon. Minister of Public Safety.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the member. What I fail to understand is that he indicates somehow that expanding debate by 20 hours a week is somehow running away from an issue. Twenty hours a week is a substantive amount of time that I might point out members opposite voted against.

I am not exactly sure what he means by saying we are running away from debate. Debate on what? I appeared in front of the committee. I responded to every objection that was raised. At the end of the day, the NDP raised no amendments. New Democrats were obviously satisfied with the position that our government had taken, that my presence at committee and the comments of my colleagues in the House had satisfied them that the bill was as good as it could possibly get.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

The member across the way is chirping because she does not have anything substantive to say on the record, but the issue is I just do not understand, how do I respond to zero amendments, an admission by the opposition that the bill is a good bill? It needs to be expedited, but members want to stand in the way.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order. It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?