House of Commons Hansard #259 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was witnesses.
Bernard Valcourt ConservativeMinister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier this week on the same topic, we take Canadians' right to privacy very seriously. I would like to make clear to the House and to all Canadians that all of the Privacy Commissioner's recommendations have been implemented by my department.
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are planning to unilaterally amend the homelessness partnering strategy, the HPS, to change its orientation. A unanimous motion by the National Assembly has denounced this change because it would ultimately result in funding cuts to many important homelessness initiatives that address diverse needs and realities.
In Sherbrooke, losing this funding would cost 16 to 18 social work jobs that are directly related to the HPS.
Can the minister confirm today that this change will not affect jobs that involve fighting homelessness in Quebec and Sherbrooke?
Kellie Leitch ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour
Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to helping vulnerable Canadians become independent and fully participate in the economy. Budget 2013 renewed the homelessness partnering strategy. In addition, the government renewed the affordable housing agreement and will provide new homes in the north.
We will be focused on making sure that we renew these projects.
LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, earlier this month our government announced the safe foods for Canadians action plan. The plan lays out new rules for meat plants to deal with E. coli and makes labelling of mechanically tenderized meat mandatory.
Albert Chambers, executive director of the Canadian Supply Chain Food Safety Coalition, said that the proposals in Bill S-11 “will position Canada's food safety regime well in the rapidly changing global regulatory environment”.
Could the Minister of Agriculture please tell the House what steps the government is taking to ensure that CFIA has adequate resources to keep food safe?
Gerry Ritz ConservativeMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board
Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague from Medicine Hat that as the CFIA identified efficiencies over this past year it was also able to hire 43 new front-line food inspectors. That is good news.
As we on the government side continue to build the capacity of CFIA, unfortunately the opposition keeps voting down those initiatives. I wish the opposition would get on board with us in bolstering our food safety system in this great country.
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill, MB
Mr. Speaker, this week a delegation representing the citizens of northern Greece came to Canada to raise their opposition to the actions of the Canadian gold mining company Eldorado. The two projects this company is undertaking in Greece risk creating serious environmental degradation and have already led to major social unrest. Canada's image and reputation in Greece is suffering.
Does the Conservative government believe that Canadian mining companies, especially those that receive government support, like Eldorado, should follow the same standards of corporate social responsibility abroad as we have here in Canada?
Gerald Keddy ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade
Mr. Speaker, Canadian mining and oil and gas companies employ thousands of people abroad and create economic growth and development in countries where they operate. Our government is committed to working with our trading partners to pursue policies that support a responsible and sustainable investment environment. The reality is we provide jobs in Canada and we provide jobs abroad. Those are dollars in the pockets of workers in both countries.
The Canadian mining sector needs to take no advice from the NDP.
Jean-François Fortin Bloc Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Mr. Speaker, statistics show that the employment insurance system is leaving tens of thousands of Quebec workers, their families and their communities high and dry.
It is set out in black and white in the monitoring report that was quietly released by the government: 6 out of 10 workers are not entitled to benefits. The accessibility of the program has been called into question.
The Conservative reform, which penalizes seasonal workers who live mainly in the regions of Quebec, is already a cause for concern, but this reality will only make things worse.
How can the government claim that the employment insurance system is working just fine when it is pushing so many Quebeckers into poverty?
Kellie Leitch ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour
Mr. Speaker, this report contains employment insurance statistics for the period from April 2011 to March 2012.
We are going to ensure that people who paid into the system, who are unemployed and who need assistance will have access to employment insurance benefits. Our government's main priorities are jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.
The cornerstone of our budget is the Canada jobs grant. I encourage the member opposite to focus on that.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the recipients of the 2013 Governor General's Performing Arts Awards: Andrew Dawes, Daniel Lanois, Jean Pierre Lefebvre, Viola Léger, Eric Peterson, Menaka Thakkar, Jean Pierre Desrosiers and Sarah Polley.
The House resumed from May 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (administration, air and railway transportation and arbitration), be read the third time and passed.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
Pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, May 22, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-52.
Call in the members.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple and clear question for my Conservative colleague. Could the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons tell us what is on the agenda for the rest of the week and for next week? That is all.
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, now that we have been sitting for a week under our Conservative government's plans for a harder-working, productive and orderly House of Commons, I would remind all hon. members of what we have been able to achieve since just Victoria Day.
Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012, was passed at report stage and third reading. Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, was passed at report stage and we started third reading debate, which we will finish tonight. Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act was passed at report stage and, just moments ago, at third reading. Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, No. 1, was reported back from committee yesterday.
Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, was passed at report stage and we started third reading debate. Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, which was reported back to the House this morning by the hard-working and fast running member for Peace River, has completed committee. Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, was debated at second reading.
We will build on this record of accomplishment over the coming week.
This afternoon, as I mentioned, we will finish the second reading debate on Bill C-51. After that, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-56, Combating Counterfeit Products Act.
Tomorrow morning, we will start report stage on Bill C-60, now that the hard-working Standing Committee on Finance has brought the bill back to us. After I conclude this statement, Mr. Speaker, I will have additional submissions for your consideration on yesterday's point of order.
After question period tomorrow, we will get a start on the second reading debate on Bill S-15, Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act. I am optimistic that we would not need much more time, at a future sitting, to finish that debate.
On Monday, before question period, we will debate Bill S-17, Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, at second reading. In the afternoon, we will hopefully finish report stage consideration of Bill C-60, followed by Bill S-2 at third reading.
On Tuesday, we will return to Bill S-2 if necessary. After that, I hope we could use the time to pass a few of the other bills that I mentioned earlier, as well as the forthcoming bill on the Yale First Nation Final Agreement.
Wednesday, June 5 shall be the eighth allotted day of the supply cycle. That means we will discuss an NDP motion up until about 6:30 p.m. This will be followed by a debate on the main estimates. Then we will pass to two appropriations acts.
Next Thursday, I would like to return back to Bill C-60, our budget implementation legislation, so we can quickly pass that important bill for the Canadian economy.
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the point of order raised yesterday by the House leader of the official opposition, because it pertained to our presence in committee.
We are not asking for more privileges than the others. We are just asking for the few rights that we do have to be respected. There are 308 MPs in the House, who were all legitimately and democratically elected. The rules of Parliament are supposed to allow all of us, from the Prime Minister right down through the ranks, to do our work as legislators for the benefit of our constituents, whether we are members of recognized parties or not.
Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to see that you want to uphold the principles behind your December 12, 2012, ruling, which reminded members that, in accordance with page 307 of the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.
It is the responsibility of the Speaker to act as the guardian of the rights and privileges of Members and of the House as an institution.
You then went on to say that:
Accordingly, unless and until new satisfactory ways of considering the motions of all members to amend bills in committee are found, the Chair intends to continue to protect the rights of independent members to propose amendments at report stage.
That is exactly what we expect of you, Mr. Speaker. A new satisfactory way of considering our amendments in committee can only be interpreted as an opportunity not only to table amendments or simply send them by fax, but also to put them forward ourselves in committee, debate them and vote on them, exactly as we do now at report stage. I am sure you will agree that we cannot rely on the goodwill of committee members, our political opponents, to put forward our amendments. Even if they wanted to, it would be impossible for them to debate and explain what amendments proposed by independent members or members of the Bloc Québécois or the Green Party are all about and the reasons behind them.
However, your decision opens the door to testing certain procedural measures in order to allow members of non-recognized parties and independent members to propose amendments to bills in committee. You also said:
..its report stage selection process would adapt to the new reality.
We understood what that meant, and we were not the only ones. The government interpreted it in its own way, as did the opposition parties. We are willing to participate in committee work with the understanding that we are not permanent members of the committees and that a time limit will be imposed on us based on our respective weight in the House. However, we want to have the same right we have at report stage in the House: the right to propose, debate and put to a vote our own amendments. Simply faxing or emailing our amendments to a committee may be an efficient method of having our amendments studied in committee, but I respectfully submit that it would strip us of the fundamental right to represent our constituents, a right that is enjoyed by all other members of the House. Report stage is when we are currently given the opportunity to exercise that right.
I sincerely believe that the scope of your ruling of December 12, 2012, was not intended to deny us our rights and make us second-class members. I believe that your ruling was designed to invite committees to use Standing Order 119, which allows them to give MPs who are not permanent members the right to speak. It was in response to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, who, on November 28, 2012, asked you to muzzle members of non-recognized parties and independent MPs. That member referred to the changes imposed by Speaker Milliken to minimize the use of motions of a repetitive, frivolous or vexatious nature or of a nature that would serve merely to prolong unnecessarily proceedings. None of the motions moved by the Bloc since the May 2011 election have met that description. We also feel that there is a need to clamp down on abuse, but that this should not be done at the expense of our rights and privileges, as the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons sadly proposed. O'Brien and Bosc fully explains those rights and privileges:
In recommending that report stage be restored, the 1968 Special Committee on Procedure believed that stage to be essential in order to provide all Members of the House, and not merely members of the committee, with an opportunity to express their views on bills under consideration and to propose amendments, where appropriate. For all that, the intent of the Committee was not for this stage to become a repetition of committee stage.
We were recently able to test out this new direction you gave, Mr. Speaker, in response to the comments by the government House leader. Following the vote at second reading stage of Bill C-60, we were invited to propose amendments in committee. According to the committee motion, these amendments were deemed proposed during clause-by-clause study. Technically, we were not allowed to propose our amendments since we are not members of the committee.
Following an email exchange and meetings with the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, we were able to briefly present our amendments because we did not have many, we were told. The official opposition made sure to remind us that we were not members of the committee under the rules and procedures of the House.
My colleague, the hon. member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, was not allowed to ask the officials present any questions, and the leader of the Green Party was unable to respond to comments on the amendments. Our participation was reduced to an absolute minimum.
In your ruling on December 12, 2012, you said:
The Standing Orders currently in place offer committees wide latitude to deal with bills in an inclusive and thorough manner that would balance the rights of all members. In fact, it is neither inconceivable nor unprecedented for committees to allow members, regardless of party status, permanently or temporarily, to be part of their proceedings, thereby opening the possibility for the restoration of report stage to its original purpose. For inspiration on the possibilities, members need only to remember that there are several precedents where independent members were made members of standing committees. Short of that, there is no doubt that any number of procedural arrangements could be developed that would ensure that the amendments that independent members wish to propose to legislation could be put in committee.
I think that the opportunity to be part of a committee would help us find that balance you are looking for and we are looking for.
At report stage, we can table and propose, debate and vote on amendments, thanks to the notes to Standing Orders 76(5) and 76.1(5) to which you refer in your decision of December 12, 2012, on the selection of report stage amendments:
For greater certainty, the purpose of this Standing Order is, primarily, to provide Members who were not members of the committee, with an opportunity to have the House consider specific amendments they wish to propose.
We participated in good faith in the process recommended by the Standing Committee on Finance, but it is clear that the balance you spoke of in your decision was not achieved.
We, the members of non-recognized parties and independents, are now at the centre of a procedural war between the government and the opposition. We find ourselves in the middle of a ping-pong game where our rights and privileges are in play.
The procedure at report stage that allows us to table, debate and vote on amendments is currently predictable. The new process is clearly not. Not all committees ask us to table amendments. Some invite us to propose amendments but do not give us the opportunity to do it ourselves, and still others, such as the Standing Committee on Finance, allow us to do so, but with every possible restriction.
There are only two options: either we are entitled to propose amendments in committee with all the applicable rights, or we are not and can do so at report stage. What we want are clear rules. We do not want to be tossed around, at the mercy of every arbitrary decision made by each of the committees. We no longer have the resources to cope with the haphazard approach or the whims of the other parties, which would like nothing better than to block us at every turn.
We do not want to have to defend our rights case by case, committee by committee, and make it painfully clear with every bill that we cannot exercise our rights in committee.
In closing, I would like to point out to you that when the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was instructed to examine the standing orders and procedures of the House and its committees, pursuant to the February 17, 2012 motion, I wrote to the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on February 27, 2012 and requested that a member of the Bloc Québécois sit on the committee for the duration of its work on this matter.
“The fact that we cannot speak in committee is an aberration that deprives us of some of our parliamentary privileges, and that is what we wish to discuss in committee,” I wrote to the committee chair.
The Bloc Québécois was already showing its willingness to work with the committee to address what we consider to be the denial of our parliamentary rights and privileges. The committee never replied to our letter.
As I pointed out yesterday, there are examples of members of non-recognized parties and independents being given rights on the committees of other legislative assemblies.
It seems to me that the evolution of House practices could allow better predictability of the rights of members of non-recognized parties and independents, as is permitted by Standing Order 122 of the National Assembly of Quebec. It states that any independent member or member of an opposition group other than the official opposition can be appointed to a standing committee, which is the equivalent of the committees here in Ottawa. In that case, the committee consists of 12 rather than 10 members.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I are prepared to advance the practices of the House, but our current rights must be preserved.
As guardian of the rights and privileges of the House of Commons, you have a duty to preserve our rights.
Standing Committee on FinancePoints of OrderGovernment Orders
York—Simcoe Ontario
Conservative
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I rise in part to add to my submissions of yesterday and in part to respond to the submissions of the hon. House leader of the official opposition and others today.
As I said yesterday, there is a key understanding around here that our committees are the masters of their own proceedings. This is articulated in our procedural literature, such as page 1,047 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition. One portion says:
The concept refers to the freedom committees normally have to organize their work as they see fit and the option they have of defining, on their own, certain rules of procedure that facilitate their proceedings.
On the next page, we see that:
....committees may adopt procedural rules to govern their proceedings, but only to the extent the House does not prescribe anything specific.
As I said, the notion that committees are masters of their own process is true and is often referred to you, Mr. Speaker, when people attempt to appeal decisions that occur in committee to this chamber, which you quite rightly point out is something for those committees.
The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley claimed yesterday that a process whereby a motion is deemed moved was some new invention. It is not. In point of fact, this same mechanism was adopted by the status of women committee on April 23 in relation to Bill S-2, family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act. There were no report stage amendments when we took up that bill on Monday.
Motions deemed moved are also contemplated in our Standing Orders. There we are not talking about committees, where we have more relaxed rules but rather in the more stringent environment of rules in this chamber. Taking a look at our rule book, I see that Standing Orders 7(1.1) and 8(2) provide that the appointments of the Speaker's three fellow chair occupants are all made on motions which are deemed to have been moved.
I have been here every night at midnight or later when the government orders finish. At the start of every night's late show, the Chair reads out the formula:
Pursuant to Standing Order 38 a motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been moved and seconded.
I could list off a number of other Standing Orders where motions are deemed to have been moved, but I think I have made my point. There is nothing novel or new about it. It is an accepted practice of this House and it is done often.
Going back to committee procedures more specifically, let me quote an excerpt from O'Brien and Bosc, which was not tendered yesterday. Page 1,018 says:
Committees often adopt sessional orders that govern the granting of the right to speak in cases where witnesses are to be questioned. Consequently, it is rare that a non-member is able to participate in such proceedings. Non-members are occasionally given the right to speak, however, following a decision by a majority of the members present or by unanimous consent.
It was exactly such a majority vote to enable participation by the independent members of Parliament that the committee took on May 7.
Turning to Beauschene's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, citation 760(3) reads:
The Speaker has ruled on many occasions that it is not competent for the Speaker to exercise procedural control over the committees. Committees are and must remain masters of their own procedure.
I referenced that earlier.
Citation 762 meanwhile provides that:
Proceedings in the committees are more relaxed in nature than those in the House as the requirements which must be observed in the Chamber are not so strictly enforced when Members sit as committees.
At page 1030 of O'Brien and Bosc, there is a review of cases where committees have allowed even non-parliamentarians to participate in committee deliberations. Citation 771 of Beauschene's covers the same ground.
As I said yesterday, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley sought to relitigate the issue addressed by your November 29, 2012 ruling, at pages 12,609 and 12,610 of Debates.
As the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands reminded us this morning, Speakers' rulings are not actually subject to appeal.
In that ruling, Mr. Speaker, you said the finance committee's invitation to other committees to submit suggested amendments to Bill C-45, an invitation which was renewed to some committees for Bill C-60 extended to independent members of Parliament the following:
....it is true that committee practice is of considerable flexibility and fluidity. This is acknowledged by the opposition House leader....
That is the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.
....himself who spoke of the need for committees to respect clear and distinct limits but declared to that, “when work is assigned to it by the House, it is largely up to the committee to decide how and when to tackle it”.
Your ruling continues:
It should be noted that in the present case, even though other committees were invited to suggest amendments, it is the finance committee itself that chose to do so. It also decided how to deal with any suggested amendments and it retained the ability to decide whether or not to adopt any such amendments.
Of course these words carry weight as rulings from the Chair and not, as the hon. NDP House leader described them yesterday, “some convenient article”. Nothing changed between Bill C-45 and Bill C-60, except for the finance committee's generous invitation, which was broadened to include members of Parliament who do not sit on the standing committee of the House .
Yesterday the House leader for the official opposition quoted page 775 of O'Brien and Bosc, which pertains to rulings on inadmissible amendments made by committees, that is to say, for example, amendments which go beyond the scope of a bill.
Mr. Speaker Milliken's ruling of February 27, 2007, which was quoted yesterday, was on that point. What is important to note is that the subject amendments would also have been inadmissible at report stage because they went beyond the principle adopted at second reading.
I now want to turn to two comments made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North yesterday. In his remarks, he stated, “We have to be very careful when we look at changing rules”.
We are not changing the rules here. The finance committee looked at creative ways within our existing rules, and did so on your invitation, I might add, of maximizing the input of all corners of this House in its work on the government's important budget legislation. The committee should be commended for responding to that invitation. He also stated that the Liberal Party opposed this matter.
Yesterday, I quoted the Liberal finance critic's comments at Tuesday's committee meeting on clause-by-clause study. A further look at the evidence of the May 7 meeting, where the invitation was adopted by the finance committee, would show, at page 20, that the hon. member for Kings—Hants had proposed an amendment to delete paragraphs (d) to (g) of the motion. The invitation to the independent MPs is not found in those paragraphs that he proposed to delete. It is found in paragraph (c). Therefore, his amendment would have actually preserved the invitation to the independents. That is what I was speaking of as my understanding of the position of the Liberal Party.
I quite reasonably concluded that the Liberal finance critic's words and actions at the committee spoke as the substantive position of the third party at that committee and here in the House.
Having now augmented my case that the proceedings in the finance committee are in order, I want to turn to the consequences of those proceedings.
The hon. members for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour and Saanich—Gulf Islands forwarded three amendments and 11 amendments respectively to the finance committee for its consideration. As we heard this morning, interventions in support of their amendments were allowed during the finance committee's clause-by-clause study in the total amount of time roughly proportionate to the number of amendments they each put forward.
It is important that we all understand that they were not just invited to submit amendments. It is important to note, in the context of the arguments that were made by them in the House, that they were also afforded an opportunity to participate at the committee. They were not to participate as full members of the committee, but to speak, to explain the nature of the amendments and to make their case. That is an extraordinary step forward. It is an advance. It shows that they were given more than just an opportunity, as was suggested, to submit amendments that someone else then proposed. They had an opportunity to explain their positions on why those amendments were of merit. This is indeed meaningful participation. It allows them to explain their position on the merits and to participate in the process to get their point of view heard.
Yesterday, I quoted from your December 12, 2012 ruling on report stage practices. I underscored your observation that there was “wide latitude” for committees. I should add that you did not say that the House had wide latitude to amend the Standing Orders. The committee's wide latitude already exists.
As I said yesterday, the generous process struck by the finance committee, I would submit, is four-square within your ruling and would serve as a model for that “satisfactory mechanism” that your ruling cited and your constructive challenge to the creativity found among the members of the House that your ruling invited.
Under this satisfactory mechanism, Mr. Speaker, it is critical to point out that the independents are not disadvantaged in relation to any other member. This is a critically important point to understand. Their right to give notice of report stage motions remains unfettered. What it does, sir, is allow you an opportunity to apply a consistent standard across the board in your selection of report stage motions, whether they are proposed by a Conservative, New Democrat, Liberal, Bloc, Green or an independent.
By virtue of the opportunity to participate and present amendments at committee, to have them heard, they are now, as independent members of this House, put on an equal footing with every other member of this House. They can propose report stage amendments. You, of course, select them in accordance with the rules, but it is achieving that equality of participation and fairness in which no individual member of this House is either advantaged or disadvantaged in accordance with our rules.
The selection criteria are set out in the note attached to Standing Order 76.(5), which provides that, “The Speaker will normally only select motions that were not or could not be presented in committee”.
That was never intended as a loophole to give to certain members of this House an extra right. However, we, through circumstances in your previous ruling, saw what one of the intended consequences of that was, and hence, you provided the invitation that it could be remedied by an effort at the committee to allow independent members to submit amendments to make their views heard at the committee stage. That is what the finance committee did.
The finance committee's mechanism, which I submit is consistent with your earlier ruling, is more than consistent, and it responds to your invitation. It enables the amendments of the independent members to be presented in committee, as that note contemplates.
Moreover, I would draw your attention to a further passage from the note: “A motion, previously defeated in committee, will only be selected if the Speaker judges it to be of such exceptional significance...”.
Accordingly, I would respectfully submit that should tomorrow's notice paper contain report stage amendments appearing in the name of a member who does not sit in a recognized party's caucus, aside from those that propose to delete clauses, it should not be selected for consideration at report stage.
In closing, I would observe that today's notice paper has four notices from the leader of the Green Party of motions to delete certain clauses of Bill C-60. In her submission to you this morning she said, and I quote from the blues, “As a matter of practical reality, the only way to have a speaking opportunity...is to have amendments tabled at report stage.”
Perhaps the answer here lies in the last sentence of Standing Order 76.1(5). “If an amendment has been selected that has been submitted by more than one Member, the Speaker, after consultation, shall designate which Member shall propose it.”
Although other members got identical notices in sooner, perhaps the balanced approach here is to call one of those motions in her name so that she can give a speech and participate in report stage, as she seeks to. Such a creative approach could well complement the finance committee's mechanism to allow independents a chance to get their views expressed in the House without creating yet more voting marathons. The exercise of this discretion could well eliminate the farcical scenes outside the offices of journals Branch last year in which New Democrats and Liberals treated us to camp-out expeditions to get their notices in first.
I would also point out that the Bloc has several deletion motions on notice as well. The same rule would apply, although I understand that some of those deletion motions stand only in their name, which would also satisfy the opportunity of ensuring they did get the ability to speak here at report stage that they seek. This, of course, would answer the concern or objection that is raised there.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, I think what you see here is a good-faith effort by the folks on the finance committee to respond to an invitation you provided, to improve the process and to enhance the rights of the independent members of this House. What we are proposing to you here is a further remedy that is wholly within your power and your ability right now to address what other additional deficiencies they fear they may encounter at report stage barring their ability to participate. This would ensure their ability to participate without any of those other adverse consequences that we have seen in the past.
I think it is a good model of the way in which, when we head into uncharted waters, you can, through your rulings, and through constructive dialogue with the committees of this House and the members of this House, evolve the rules in a fashion that works in the way you want it to, and that is to protect, in this case, the rights of the independent members of Parliament.
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that if you were to submit, and accept the arguments of the House leader of the official opposition, exactly the opposite would occur. You would be rejecting a process that was designed in good faith to provide those independent members an opportunity to participate in committee, and saying to reject the very invitation that you made and the suggestions you made for improvement.
Should you find favour with that perspective, you will not see an advance for the defence of the rights of independent members of Parliament here; you will in fact see them constrained and straitjacketed, no longer able to participate in the committee. For there will, of course, be no reason for the committee to exercise such an approach to invite their participation because under the rules of this House, they do not sit as members of the committees; that is a long-standing practice of this House.
I could ascribe motive and say that we know that the New Democrats do not want to see the Green Party or the Bloc Québécois members, who represent their rivals electorally regionally, have this additional profile and ability to participate. Perhaps that is their motive, I do not know.
However, all I know is that what we have here is a good faith effort by a committee. To respond to your invitation, Mr. Speaker, a set of constructive solutions will advance the dialogue, help us solve these problems and make this House a more functional place that will not be held in disrepute by the public, but rather will be seen to be focused on working, debating the important issues of the day, getting the work done and allowing the votes and decisions to be taken here that people send us to make.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
I thank the hon. government House leader for his further contributions, and of course will get back to the House in due course.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the third time and passed.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, government orders will be extended by seven minutes.
The hon. member for Edmonton Centre.
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lend my support to Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act.
At the outset, I will point out that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country.
Without question, the federal witness protection program continues to serve Canadians well. However, there is no denying that there have been sweeping changes in the landscape since the Witness Protection Program Act was first passed 17 years ago. At the same time, various stakeholders have made constructive suggestions for improving the program. For all these reasons, the time has come to bring Canada's witness protection program into the 21st century both for the sake of protectees, as well as the ones who protect them.
Having carefully reviewed Bill C-51 and as a member of the public safety committee, I am confident the safer witnesses act would make federal witness protection programs more effective and more secure.
Before highlighting the proposed amendments, let me reflect on the rationale for the changes. There are three main catalysts for this bill: the evolving nature of crime and technology, the recommendations of several key reports and the needs of our stakeholders. I will address each in turn.
The revolution in information technology, which continues unabated, has been an double-edged sword. On the one hand, the law enforcement community has new tools to track down criminals. On the other hand, organized crime can now track down, intimidate and threaten witnesses more easily. Canada's witness protection program needs greater flexibility to keep one step ahead of the criminals. In other words, we need to better protect and secure information about witnesses, programs and the administrators of those programs. Bill C-51 addresses those concerns.
Against this backdrop, we must also acknowledge that two major reports have recommended changes to how we protect our witnesses. In March 2008, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security made several important recommendations to enhance the witness protection program. In its response, the government committed to consult with affected stakeholders and the bill we are discussing today is informed by those wide-ranging views.
Members may recall the Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182 also recommended changes to the witness protection program. The Government of Canada responded, and I am pleased to note the safer witnesses act reflects priorities in the government's Air India action plan.
The third major catalyst, which is connected to these reports, is the evolving needs of our stakeholders, including the provinces and territories and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In particular, there has been a resounding call for improved interaction between and among different levels of government.
I am pleased to say the safer witnesses act has provisions to enhance communication between federal departments and between federal, provincial and territorial governments. On that note, let me review the main elements of the bill, beginning with how it would streamline management of the witness protection program.
Members may be aware of differences between the federal program and programs that exist in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Essentially, the federal program, which is run by the RCMP, provides long-term protection for witnesses. This could involve moving a family to another location and changing the identities of its members.
Provincial programs are often generally focused on more short-term protection. This could include making sure that witnesses are safe and secure before they testify in a major trial. However, there are times when the provinces need support from the RCMP. Unfortunately, there are also times when that support gets bogged down by bureaucracy. For example, sometimes provinces must obtain new identities for the protectees. To do so, the provinces must currently enrol them in the federal program. This process can take time and when lives are at stake, obviously time counts.
To address this problem, Bill C-51 would change this process. Ultimately, once designated, provincial programs could deal directly with the RCMP for secure identity changes without transferring protectees into the federal program. The proposed amendments would enhance interactions between and among federal agencies and departments. Now, when the RCMP needs help with an identity change for a provincial protectee, federal departments would be duty bound to co-operate.
The second major set of amendments in this bill concerns disclosure of information. Currently, the act prohibits only the disclosure of information about the location and identity of federal protectees. Bill C-51 would broaden the scope of protection to include sensitive information about how the program is run and about those who administer the program.
Moreover, in response to concerns by stakeholders, the bill would extend these prohibitions to designated provincial programs. Bill C-51 would also clear up vague wording in the current act about the nature of direct and indirect disclosure. It would prohibit, for example, revealing anything about protectees that could even indirectly identify them, such as medical conditions or distinguishing marks.
This government strongly believes that protectees have a right to know when their new identities might be compromised. That is why the proposed amendments will broaden the government's duty to notify witnesses about any relevant disclosure.
At the same time, the bill reserves the right to a full notification if the disclosure might compromise national security. There is always a need to balance the rights of protectees and the needs of the public. In certain parts of the existing legislation, however, the pendulum swings too far away from the protectees.
For that reason, Bill C-51 would specify the RCMP Commissioner must have reasonable grounds to believe national security or defence was at risk before he or she could disclose a protectees identity.
At the same time, the proposed legislation would authorize the commissioner to disclose information if it would better protect witnesses in both federal and provincial programs.
Disclosure would also be allowed if protected persons gave their consent, if they had already disclosed their real identities themselves or acted in a way that revealed their identities.
This brings me to the question of what happens if a protectee no longer wishes to be protected. Currently, only the commissioner may end protection for witnesses in the federal program. Bill C-51 proposes a change that would allow protectees to voluntarily terminate their involvement. Not only would this protect the rights of protectees to leave, it would also protect the integrity of the program. If a protectee no longer follows the rules, it jeopardizes the entire program, including the lives of its administrators. These witnesses are very different and we must try to accommodate them as best we can.
As I mentioned earlier, we must recognize that witnesses may need protection from a terrorist rather than a simple criminal. For that reason, the bill proposes to open the witness protection program to referrals from federal institutions with a Public Safety, National Defence or National Security mandate.
Bill C-51 is a thoughtful and comprehensive approach to bring the federal witness protection program into the new millennia. It has been well received by many provincial jurisdictions as well as by law enforcement communities, and takes into consideration the needs of other concerned groups.
Let me quote from Tom Stamatakis, who is the President of the Canadian Police Association:
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. On behalf of the over 50,000 law enforcement personnel that we represent across Canada, we ask that Parliament quickly move to adopt this Bill.
The NDP and Liberals have supported this legislation at every stage. No amendments were proposed. Bill C-51 was studied at five public safety committee meetings, and this is the fourth day that Bill C-51 has been debated in the House.
It is time to get on with it. I would urge all hon. members to join me in giving Bill C-51 their full and unconditional support.
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting bill. A number of New Democrats have promoted the principles behind this bill in the past and more recently.
However, money is the crucial issue. Police forces, especially smaller forces in smaller communities, will not necessarily have the resources they need. There are some serious concerns about this.
Although we agree with the spirit of the bill, we want to know how the government plans on helping these police forces protect witnesses who are in danger, when they do not have as many resources at their disposal.
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that all the witnesses who came before the committee, when asked the question about financing, said that they were more than comfortable that there were sufficient resources within the program to do that.
If there is some smaller community out there that has some difficulty, certainly it could approach and appeal for assistance in some way. Without knowing any circumstances, it would be currently hypothetical to say it would be or would not be accepted, but the process and the openness is there to listen to anybody who needs help.