Debates of Feb. 16th, 2015

Consideration Resumed of Motion

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if the hon. member who just asked the question has evidence that the person who attacked Parliament was a terrorist. Let him prove it.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Parkdale—High Park for her speech.

In a speech he made previously, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster indicated that in the United States there was the example of an independent police force that was adopted more than a century ago by Congress, made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate. It is a good example close by of a police force that has investigative authority comparable to that of other police forces, but reports strictly to the U.S. Congress.

If it is good enough for the United States to have a security service under the authority of the legislative branch and not the executive branch, then why would we in Canada allow the executive branch to stick its nose into the security of the legislative branch?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. That is indeed the question of the day. Why does the government want to take this power when other countries are satisfied with the independence of the legislative branch?

I do not understand this desire to consolidate this power. It makes no sense. It is a good question for the government. Once again, I encourage the government to support the amendment to its motion in order to preserve the independence of Parliament.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows that I wrote to the Minister of Public Safety and to the Chief Government Whip last week. I suggested that they consider an amendment to the government's resolution to stipulate that the RCMP have a contractual agreement requiring it to report to parliamentary authorities.

I gave two examples: the agreement signed in 2012 between the Government of Canada and British Columbia, which stated that the RCMP commanding officer in British Columbia had to report to the provincial security minister; and the London police force, which provides security to the British Parliament, but must report to parliamentary authorities under a service agreement.

Does my colleague have any comments about that suggestion?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for the letter he sent.

Indeed, there are other measures we could take to keep Parliament safe and to retain the responsibility, power and independence of the speakers of the two chambers, instead of consolidating the power in the hands of the Prime Minister. That is the flaw in the government's motion that we are trying to fix.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying a big thank you to the member for Parkdale—High Park. If she had not kindly agreed to share her time, I probably would not have had the opportunity to speak to this motion, since we are facing a gag order for the 87th time. That number in itself is huge. However, it is even more absurd that the government is muzzling us on a topic as important as the one we are debating today.

I also want to say that there are two clips that still stand out in my mind from the events of October 22, since the discussion we are having today is unfortunately related to the events of October 22.

First, there is the first clip that we have seen repeatedly, I would even say ad nauseam, of the shooting in the main hallway, but there is the second clip from the House showing us, the Parliament of Canada, speaking with one voice on October 23. On October 23, there were no Conservatives, Liberals or New Democrats; there was one Parliament sitting, aware of what had happened the day before. On an issue as vital as the security of Parliament, the house of the people, Canadians are expecting Parliament to be unanimous once again, without a government or partisan motion or bill. They really expect the entire House to be able to speak to the security measures it wants to take, because this is not just about the security of the parliamentarians and senators who work here; this is also the house of the people.

I remember spending the entire day of October 22 confined with Canadians who had come to visit us in caucus that morning. They sure knew how to pick their morning. They spent an entire day in one room in Parliament. I am therefore also concerned about the security of each and every Canadian who enters their house.

I do not think we are too far from being able to reach unanimity. I think there is already a consensus that response forces need to be consolidated. We just have a few differences of opinion on the approach: who should be given this consolidated power?

In the speeches that have been given over the past little while, I have heard some things that made my hair stand on end. One example is the hypotheses about what could have happened if there had been two, three or four shooters and if the weapons had been different. That makes the hair on my arms stand on end, because we have all imagined those horrific scenarios, but that is not what happened, thank goodness.

However, when the government defends a motion by claiming that there is a pressing need, it is as though the government is telling all Canadians that Parliament is still not a very secure place right now. However, that is not the case. Security measures have already been heightened since the events of October 22.

Do we have the leading-edge security we would like? Probably not, but I can say that I come to work here every day feeling safe, and I think that the visitors who come here also feel safe. Let us stop talking about the urgency of this matter and let us work together to find the solution that will allow Parliament to speak with one voice. The reason why I insist on talking about Parliament so much is that, if there is one common denominator that all democracies share, it is the principle of separation of powers. When we talk about Parliament, we are not talking about the government, but about all of the representatives of Canadians.

As I examine this motion, it is clear to me that the government is trampling on the backbone of our democracy by taking advantage of the tragic events that occurred in this very place on October 22, 2014.

This motion is essentially government interference in an area under Parliament's exclusive jurisdiction. If the Speaker of the House has one customary and deeply rooted responsibility with respect to the operations of this House, it is the privilege of ensuring the security of parliamentarians, visitors and staff. If there is one institution that the current government ignores, it is certainly the House of Commons and the citizens whom we are privileged to represent in the House. Over time, our democratic tradition has grown stronger thanks to the House of Commons' participation in society's great debates. In many ways, it is this powerful instrument of representative democracy that the Conservative government is trying to undermine.

We firmly support the idea that an integrated security force should be present and operational within the parliamentary precinct. If it is to be effective, we must allocate more resources to that security force and ensure closer coordination among its teams while ensuring that it meets the highest standards in the field. These conditions are essential to our ability to carry out our parliamentary duties in absolute security.

I once again reiterate the critical importance we place on the security of our parliamentary institution. We think it is crucial to support the integration of the House of Commons and Senate security forces. However, our support is contingent on this integrated security force being accountable to the speakers of the House and the Senate, and not to the authority of the RCMP, which reports to the executive branch of government.

This is not to suggest in the least that I have any doubts whatsoever about the competence of that police force, but I must recognize that within Parliament, if we cannot keep the legislative branch separate from the executive branch there could be some question of whether justice is being done or seen to be done. Let me give a hypothetical example. Imagine that the RCMP is the body in charge of this integrated force and a member has the impression that the RCMP is reporting the actions of a member to the government. Clearly, even if there is not a conflict of interest, there is certainly the appearance of a conflict of interest. That is why, ever since the age of enlightenment, everyone understands the importance of the separation of powers.

The question, then, is this: have we dimmed the light of understanding in 2015? The question remains unanswered, but personally, I am 100% convinced that the separation of powers is necessary and that the executive branch cannot be left in charge of this unified force.

Consequently, it is unacceptable for a government to twist Parliament's arm in its bid to control control internal security at all costs.

Time is flying by and, once again, I will not have enough time to present everything I had prepared. Therefore, I will instead stop now in order to have as much time as possible for our discussions. On such a crucial issue as this one, I would prefer to have exchanges among members of the different parties, rather than questions and answers that seek to corner members and to give this motion a political and partisan slant. This House truly represents all Canadians and requires the implementation of the best possible security system.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will basically continue with the same question that I asked all my other colleagues.

If the RCMP were responsible for security, would the member agree that it be on condition that, under a contractual agreement, it must ultimately report to the parliamentary authorities, namely the speakers of both chambers—the House of Commons and the Senate—and any mechanisms that they would establish? Personally, I believe that no matter who has this responsibility—whether it is the current guards or an outside organization or agency—they should not report to the government, because this could be seen as undermining the authority of Parliament and not respecting the separation of powers between the executive and the legislative branches.

Therefore, would my colleague agree that even if it were the RCMP, it should be subject to a contractual agreement requiring it to report to the parliamentary authorities?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question and I commend him on his openness when he says that, regardless who is heading security, they must report to the government. That is where we are now. If it is a matter of choosing the most competent authority, then I would tend to trust those who are already here.

Unfortunately and oddly, they were not consulted in any way in the process leading up to the moving of this motion, even though they were the ones who have been ensuring our safety ever since I got here and long before that.

When I look at other Canadian models, including that of Ontario where they did exactly the opposite, or in other words they asked the RCMP to leave in order to make room for an internal and independent security force, I think this shows us the way and the direction we should be taking.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Trois-Rivières. I absolutely agree with his comments and those of the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier.

It is clear that this motion does not seek to support the Auditor General's recommendations. The Auditor General never said that it was important to put the RCMP in charge of security in the Parliamentary precinct.

It is clear that changes need to be made. Nonetheless, I think that the Conservative government wants to make drastic changes to the workings of Parliament in order to reduce the power of Parliament itself. I have come to the conclusion that this goes against the Constitution of Canada.

Once again I want to thank my colleague and all the members of his party for their leadership on this.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I would add that I am not a constitutional expert, but I do believe that common sense still has a place. During the age of Enlightenment we learned how important the separation of powers is. This should be the focus as we make decisions, as should the competence of those who defended us and who continue to defend us.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard a comment from the other side that was both shocking and disappointing. The member compared us in the House to sitting ducks, waiting to be killed by hunters.

This is related to my colleague's comments about how we need to stop seeing the House as a dangerous, unprotected place and how we need to stop exploiting this false panic.

Could my colleague talk more about the importance of not playing the game being played by this government? I would appreciate it.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously that distracted me from my point, but when I hear comments like that, it really looks to me as though people are trying to take advantage of a situation to score political points because they think that, since security issues are sensitive issues in terms of public opinion and people pay attention to them, they might score a few points here and there by saying that danger is at our doorstep.

Danger is not really at our doorstep. Nevertheless, we have to improve our security forces. That is a fact.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, because of committee work, unfortunately I was not here for the last part of the previous member's presentation to this House.

Also, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Edmonton Centre.

Mr. Speaker, we hear from the other side that the government is trying to somehow let Canadians know that we members of Parliament feel unsafe. I feel quite safe in this place. As a matter of fact, I feel quite safe in any part of my dear country called Canada.

However, we have a responsibility in this place. That was brought to our attention in a very unfortunate way, when a person visited us on October 22, 2014. Every Canadian who viewed the events of that day through the media and saw what occurred, saw the person running across the parliamentary precinct and right up the steps, wonders how these things happen.

We know that for some time prior to October 22 there had been discussions of security in this day and age. There had been discussions of security in the world in which we live, having regard to so-called homegrown terrorists and homegrown difficulties, even just the things that are happening in our world that have changed the paradigm. We are no longer living in 1940; we are living in 2015. We need to look at security, as other nations have across the world. We need to look at nations that have a parliamentary tradition similar to ours, a Westminster-style governance, such as our sister legislatures in Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain. We see what they are doing about their security, and we find they are very similar to what the motion states it would do.

The government is not trying to significantly change the way we do things in this House, or the way that security is presented in this House. We are guided by the realities of 2015. The realities are that we cannot break a chain of responsibility into four or five different pieces and expect there to be efficiency and effectiveness. There needs to be uniformity, a plain and simple order of authority that is ultimately responsible: what job is it for every level, just like in Canada's second-largest deployed police force, in which I worked. We have detachments that respond to regions which were responding to headquarters.

In this place, as a result of October 22, we found that there were four different jurisdictions affected on that date, each one operating somewhat in a silo, although there was communication. We had the Ottawa Police Service, the House of Commons security services, the Senate protective service, and, of course, the RCMP.

I think any Canadian viewing this would say that a uniform chain of command is needed, a responsible agency at the top that works in conjunction with the different levels of security.

I heard a mention of the Ontario legislature. In the Ontario legislature, the province that I come from, we have the Ontario Government protective service, OGPS. It works in conjunction with the Ontario Provincial Police, which has the same type of relationship with the Government of Ontario that the RCMP has with the federal government.

That is what the motion says. No one is going to lose their job. It makes a lot of sense. Why does it make sense? Any person who knows the connection with the RCMP, which is responsible for policing this great nation of ours, and the rest of the world, knows it has international relationships with other nations and a close relationship with CSIS.

Therefore, in this place, the seat of democracy for our nation, we the government are proposing that the RCMP be able to gather all of this information because it is the most responsible body.

We will still have the House of Commons and Senate security, which we are saying should be one security service. We were already moving toward that before October 22. However, we have parliamentarians who want to go back 200 to 300 years and cloud this whole issue of security.

The RCMP is independent of the government. It knows its responsibility. This motion would not change that.

There are those who are saying that they want to make sure that the RCMP reports to Parliament. However, the RCMP will report through security, through the Speakers of each of our individual Houses. Therefore, we will maintain the independence we already have.

It would make sense to have one security agency, although it would operate in different parts. It would be just like it is with a deployed police force, such as the RCMP, which has detachments reporting to provincial governments, but which in the end is our national police force. We would have a uniformed police service reporting here. Instead of several independent agencies working in silos having meetings and sharing information, we would have a distinct chain of command. The RCMP would oversee security, but we would still have the great men and women who work in the House of Commons and Senate security and who keep us safe, and will continue to do so.

I look back on October 22 and see some of the things the average citizen sees and who asks how a person could have done the things he did. I respond that we are working on security. I inform my constituents that we continually improve security. We have those pylons for the green buses going by, which were not there a year and a half ago, and so we are increasing security. What the plan and this motion advance is the integration of these security forces. We need to continue that.

Time is of the essence and despite what members may have heard, this integrated approach is compliant with the Auditor General's report of 2012, which recommended unifying the security forces on Parliament Hill under a single point of command, making it possible to respond to situations more effectively and efficiently.

The RCMP, as I mentioned, has international as well as domestic relationships with other police forces. It would also have the ability to work in conjunction with the security forces on Parliament Hill to be able to make them into a stronger, more efficient and effective security service. That is what this motion would do. It actually goes further than the Auditor General's report.

I think the Auditor General would be very happy with that, because we would have the RCMP, which is able to correlate those additional resources from around the world with its connections with CSIS and the Five Eyes. Pursuant to this motion, having a completely integrated security service on Parliament Hill would bode well for all of the people who work and live in this precinct, including on days like this when we are here until nine or ten o'clock.

However, more important than the 308 of us here and 105 in the other place, Canadians would be able to come here and also feel safe. I care about everyone's safety, but it is the men, women, and children who come to this place whom we need to keep safe. They need to know that it is a safe place to visit. October 22 told them that bad things can happen, which we also see as we look around the world.

It is our responsibility to reassure our constituents that what we are doing in this place is making it safer not only for the men and women they send here, but also for their friends, their neighbours, and them and their children when they visit this great place of democracy where we are all so honoured and privileged to sit and represent our constituents.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is not at all opposed to the idea of an integrated security force operating within the parliamentary precinct to protect parliamentarians, staff and visitors.

However, we are opposed to the idea of that force being run by the RCMP and reporting to itself and the government. We strongly believe that the security force should report only to Parliament and to you, Mr. Speaker. That is our view.

Will the hon. member vote in favour of our amendment to the motion, which clarifies the separation of powers?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not mistrust the RCMP. It works independently of government. If someone in government goes offside, commits an offence, or breaks the law, does the RCMP ask someone for permission to charge that individual? No, it goes directly to the crown attorney.

What is sometimes wrong in this place is when everyone goes off on tangents and says that the RCMP cannot be trusted because it is made up of police officers, that they would much rather trust someone else. RCMP officers act in the best interests of the citizens of this country and would never permit themselves to be swayed by any Liberal, Conservative, socialist, or other party. I just bristle, unfortunately, when I hear the opposite. I try to keep calm, especially when members of this place tell the citizens of Canada that they cannot trust the RCMP, that somehow we have to make sure that we in the House of Commons can be trusted more than the RCMP. I trust the RCMP. I trust police officers in this country more than I trust some other folks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have not said that I do not trust the RCMP. I have a great deal of respect for and trust in the RCMP, but there is an institutional and constitutional difference here. The RCMP ultimately reports through the Prime Minister, through representatives of government.

A fundamental principle of our Westminster system of government, a parliamentary democracy, is the supremacy of Parliament. That is why we have always had officers of Parliament report through the Speaker. This would be a fundamental change and it is being rushed. That is one of my main concerns. As a leader of a small party, I will not be able to give a 10 or 20 minute address on this issue.

I have been doing legal research and reaching out to lawyers to see if we could get an injunction to stop this from happening before we get evidence from security experts. I am very troubled that we will not hear what our former sergeant-at-arms would have to say. Everyone in this place cheered him for his heroism. Everyone cheered for the wonderful team that defended us on October 22. We do have the benefit of his advice. It is pretty clear to me that the House of Commons security team is constitutionally different from the RCMP. It is not a matter of trust.

I put to my hon. friend that the motion before us is so vague in saying “...ensuring the continued employment of our existing and respected Parliamentary Security staff.” It does not say where the employment would be. It does not say that our security staff would continue in the roles and functions they have here.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my fellow members of the House that their privileges as parliamentarians would not be affected.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, we looked at our sister Westminster legislatures, including Great Britain. Its parliamentary security is the same as this motion recommends. Members are trying to cloud the issue, that somehow and in some way we are immensely different from everyone else.

The RCMP would work in conjunction with House of Commons and Senate security. I suspect strongly that the RCMP will continue its relationship with the Ottawa Police Service on the outside of this precinct. It only makes sense that there would be an efficient stream with the RCMP, the police force of this nation, which has access to all of the information that comes to the security service and which keeps us safe both nationally and internationally. The Auditor General of Canada has said that this would be more effective and efficient for the safety of parliamentarians and Canadians in general who visit this place.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to rise and contribute to this important debate on a motion put forward by my colleague, the Chief Government Whip.

In the wake of the terrorist attacks that began in a parking lot in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu on October 20, 2014, and that moved to the National War Memorial on October 22, 2014, and ended only a few minutes later with the dramatic death of a gunman at the hands of the RCMP, the parliamentary security forces, and the then sergeant-at-arms, I think it is fair to say that this motion was inevitable. The harrowing events of those days, which we all remember, brought a number of things to the attention of all parliamentarians.

First, it showed us the courage, professionalism, and capacity of the RCMP detachment on the Hill; the bravery of the House of Commons and Senate security services and the former sergeant-at-arms; as well as the professionalism and rapid response of the Ottawa Police Service. We all recognize the great job they did that day, and we are eternally grateful for their willingness to stand on guard every day for us here at the heart of our democracy.

On October 22, 2014, their years of training paid off. They advanced in the face of fire and the situation was brought to a safe conclusion. However, October 22, 2014 also brought into sharp relief some really concerning facts about security here on Parliament Hill.

For example, on October 22, 2014, there were four different jurisdictional police/security services. They were the House of Commons, the Senate, the RCMP, and the Ottawa Police Service. The possibility for wires to get crossed with this many points of accountability is high. When dealing with the security of the elected legislators of our nation, the hundreds who support us, and the thousands of citizens and visitors who come here to watch us work, those risks cannot continue.

Many Canadians would be rightly concerned about the fact that there are so many different jurisdictional security services with responsibilities for various parts of the Hill. Bureaucratic silos are an impediment to security, integration, and overall preparedness, which 9/11 showed to the world. On that terrible day, thousands of people died, including 24 Canadians. Our appreciation of the world of security and risk changed forever.

October was a far less catastrophic wake-up call than 9/11, but it was a wake-up call we cannot ignore.

In the aftermath of 9/11, with all of the resulting investigation and introspection, it became clear that all of the evidence had been there to take pre-emptive action, but that no one had put it together. No one had put it together because the various agencies were not sharing information the way they should have done. We cannot let that same type of silo mentality compromise the safety of Canadians, Canada, our visitors, or our institutions.

Although not directly related to this motion, Bill C-51 would go a long way to breaking down the silos that exist between the various agencies making up the security system of Canada. The passage and implementation of that bill would be essential to giving us the tools we need to plan and implement common sense, effective security measures in the parliamentary precinct.

It is imperative that security within the parliamentary precinct be integrated and enhanced. This leads to Motion No. 14, which we are debating today. Motion No. 14 calls on the Speakers of the House of Commons and the Senate to invite the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to lead operational security throughout the parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament while—and this part is important—respecting the privileges, immunities, and powers of the respective Houses, and ensuring the continued employment of our existing and respected Parliamentary security staff.

When we say “respecting the privileges, immunities and powers of the respective Houses”, that means you, Mr. Speaker, and your colleague down the hall in the Senate. You have the authority. The RCMP would not be reporting to the government; it would be reporting to the House of Commons and the Senate through you and your counterpart.

This motion would advance the recent efforts by the House and Senate to integrate their forces, but it would not replace them. It is the next step. In the face of a rapidly changing and evolving threat environment, we need to ensure that these efforts continue to be carried out effectively and efficiently in the face of evolving threats.

Let me talk about those threats for a moment. CSIS tells us that it is keeping track of somewhere around 140 people of interest. We can be pretty certain that the actual number that we should be concerned about is much higher. That points to the need for Bill C-51 and the sharing of security information.

ISIS is actively recruiting in Canada and many other countries around the world. Some of that recruiting is targeted at individuals or vulnerable communities. Some of it is more general, seeding destructive, terrorist thoughts into regrettably receptive minds that might also be suffering from mental illness.

Some say that the acts in October, 2014 were not terrorism, but merely related to mental illness. Who of sound mind would carry out those kinds of actions, anyway? I suggest that this would be a misunderstanding of terrorism and the things that make terrorism work.

I am pretty sure that the two killers of our soldiers in October, 2014 were not members of ISIS per se, but they were certainly influenced by the fundamentalist ideology that ISIS spews.

Without knowing who they are individually, these are the kind of people ISIS counts on to be random hand grenades spread around the world just waiting for their pins to be pulled. They do not know when they are going to go off; they just know that they are.

This integrated approach being proposed is essential, and it is in line with the recommendations from the 2012 Auditor General's report that recommended unifying security forces on the Hill, “under a single point of command, making it possible to respond to situations more efficiently and effectively”. One chain of command, one point of accountability.

Of course, access to Parliament Hill must remain for Canadians and visitors, but it must be balanced with very real security concerns. Countries like the United Kingdom and Australia have similar approaches to security, and their experiences have shown that security forces can be integrated while still respecting the privileges of all parliamentarians.

This plan will do nothing to alter or negatively impact the existing immunities and parliamentary privileges of senators and members of Parliament, including the right of members to come and go unimpeded.

It does mean, however, that we as parliamentarians might be asked from time to time to show ID to security personnel, for example. That does not restrict access. It just confirms identification. I know that it is the job of our security forces to recognize this, and they do a very good job of it.

On my first encounter with security personnel on entering Centre Block under the Peace Tower as an MP in 2006, I was greeted by name and welcomed to Ottawa. I was impressed then and I have been impressed ever since. That does not mean that from time to time a member of that security force may not recognize someone and may ask for identification, which every one of us should have available all the time. That is just plain common sense.

This does not constitute a breach of privilege, as was recently alleged, and is not a reason for any member to spring into self-righteous indignation. All parliamentarians must face the reality that our security environment here in this place has changed, and we must adapt to it. That does not mean casting aside our ease of access, though it does mean being prepared to be asked for ID from time to time, even if one is a parliamentarian. That is just plain smart security.

When it comes to integrating parliamentary security, the RCMP is clearly the best equipped to provide operational leadership in terms of command, control, and coordination and to lead security on Parliament Hill. It does not mean that they would do it all. It means that they would lead it.

They have a national presence with access to rapid response training, security assessments, and intelligence that is essential to meeting today's evolving threats. They have the experience and the tools to effectively implement and manage a complex security system. They have been doing that for a long time.

Importantly, these new security measures would have oversight from a parliamentary authority, contrary to what is being suggested by the opposition. Again, Mr. Speaker, this would come through you and through your counterpart down the hall.

One force in Parliament and another force outside it simply does not make sense. We must support full integration throughout the entire parliamentary precinct under the operational leadership of the RCMP.

To those who claim that this is in some way a demotion of existing House of Commons security personnel, let me address that very clearly. It is not. The existing parliamentary security personnel are valued and respected, as they should be. Their continued employment will be consistent with all existing collective bargaining agreements, to the question from my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands. Those who suggest otherwise are simply trying to play politics at a time when our focus should be on every part of our security apparatus working together to get the job done.

This is a measure that is long overdue after another tragic wake-up call of the kind that our allies have also experienced around the world, most recently in Australia, France, and Denmark.

To honour the memories of Corporal Cirillo and Warrant Officer Vincent, and the security personnel who put their lives on the line that day and every day, we must take action to improve our security on Parliament Hill. To do otherwise would be sticking our heads in the sand and would not be appropriate for a serious G7 country.

This change to security on Parliament Hill is overdue and will balance liberty and security at our national legislature. We owe that to the people who count on us. It is just plain common sense.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder what my colleague who just addressed the House thinks about an extremely troubling, weak comment made by his Conservative colleague.

When one of my colleagues suggested that perhaps the RCMP should not be responsible for managing the security of Parliament, the Conservative member described that as a terrible affront to the RCMP, as though we were denigrating it and that was terrible.

That is so far out of line that this kind of behaviour could even cause diplomatic incidents, considering that American parliamentarians decided to have independent security in their buildings, even though the Americans have a state police, the FBI, and all kinds of extremely effective national structures.

Is my colleague trying to say that the Americans are showing contempt for their national forces with that decision? Is that what the Conservatives are saying? Do they realize how absurd their argument is?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I have to laugh at that question a little bit.

I respect the question and the questioner, but to suggest that because we are supporting the RCMP because of its experience, long history, capability, connections, tools, and equipment, which clearly make it the best single body in this country to coordinate effective security here, and which does not mean that it would do it all, it is somehow demeaning security forces in another country is just plain silly.

[An hon. member]

It is rubbish.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

That too.

There is no connection there at all. I really would appreciate a more relevant question.

[Erin O'Toole, Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my learned colleague and air force caucus mate for his very good discussion of the challenges we face in the modern world when it comes to security.

Quite frankly, I am shocked when sometimes people in this House harken back to the early days of parliamentary democracy and the early reigns of kings, when most of the people reflected in this House today would not have been part of that parliamentary democracy, because they would not have been permitted to sit in this place or even be permitted to vote.

Certainly our parliamentary democracy has evolved with time. This is an evolution that should be part of it, because we can walk into the Hall of Honour and see first-hand the marks we must learn from in terms of preserving this special place for Canadians of today and in the future.

Speaking of his time with the Canadian Forces, I would like my friend to speak to how the after-action report approach to learning from incidents like this has been taken into account in this case. We have seen that multiple lines of communication and multiple lines of authority can actually lead to a slower response and a less complete picture of risks to the people on this Hill, but more importantly, to our parliamentary democracy at large.

Could the member speak particularly to how a single reporting line and single oversight would allow and actually empower the guards on the Hill who we are so thankful for?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, for the great job he is doing in that new portfolio and for the question.

It is a very relevant question. His background and mine have been in the military environment. Other colleagues have been in the police environment, where it is extremely important that people know who is coordinating, who is in charge. It does not mean that this person or that office is doing all the jobs. It means that there is one point of command.

Personally, I would relate to being the wing operations officer at 4 Wing Cold Lake. It was a large operation with many different facets. The command post ran the operation, and I ran the command post. There were people out there doing all the different jobs: military police, the flying operation, the security operation, the supply operation, and the armaments operation. All those operations were run by people we trusted, because they knew what they were doing, just like the RCMP trusts the security forces inside the House of Commons and the Senate to know what they are doing. However, there had to be someone at the point of authority to take in the reports, collate them, and say what was going well and where help was needed. There had to be someone there to coordinate and control that and to command that.

That is what this is about. It is about hard-earned experience from decades and decades of military operations, which, let us face it, in many ways is what we are talking about here. This is a paramilitary operation. Especially when they are using force or the force of arms at times, they had better have control over that. They had better know what is going on. There had better be one body in charge of coordinating that reporting to someone who has authority over them, just like the base commander had authority over me in Cold Lake. Someone is the base commander and someone is the Wings Ops O; the RCMP is the Wings Ops O.

The RCMP should be trusted to do the job. It is the one equipped to do it. It has the experience, training, capacity, and tools. Let the RCMP get on with it.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last week I sent a letter to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. I would like to read it so it will be in the record.

I also sent it to the chief government whip, the Prime Minister, the leader of the official opposition, the leader of my party, and every parliamentarian in this House and in the upper house as well.

It states:

Dear Minister...

I am writing to express concern regarding the motion introduced by your government to give the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) responsibility for all security on Parliament Hill, both on the grounds and throughout the Parliamentary Precinct.

First, I support the principle of fully integrated security on Parliament Hill and believe the employees currently responsible for parliamentary security should keep their jobs. They are very competent and no one is questioning their professionalism.

However, I believe we must respect the primacy of Parliament, parliamentary privilege and the separation of powers. Parliamentary privilege is one of the ways of ensuring respect for the fundamental constitutional separation of powers. This privilege protects Parliament from interference. A security force accountable to the government rather than to Parliament could be perceived as outside interference.

Given the limited time allotted for consideration of Government Business No. 14, I wish to make a recommendation. It is essential that the RCMP (the operational lead for the proposed integrated force) ultimately report to Parliament through the speakers of the two houses, not to the government. I therefore urge you to amend your motion to specifically stipulate that the RCMP commander responsible for security on Parliament Hill would report to parliamentary authorities.

Furthermore, I urge you to consult the April 1st, 2012, memorandum of agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia regarding provincial police services.

Specifically, Article 7 stipulates that the “Commanding Officer [of the RCMP] will act under the direction of the Provincial Minister in aiding the administration of justice in the Province and in carrying into effect the laws in force therein.” Therefore, a model already exists in our country that could be applied to the Canadian Parliament, a constitutional institution. That type of arrangement could very easily be expressly included in your motion and in any future service agreement. Article 7 of the 2012 Province of British Columbia Provincial Police Service Agreement is attached hereto.

I also draw your attention to another example in the United Kingdom. The London Metropolitan Police Service provides security services to the UK Parliament under a service agreement. The unit responsible works with the Director of Parliamentary Security, who is an employee of the houses of Parliament and is responsible for making recommendations to the Joint Committee on Security (made up of members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords).

In my opinion, the vast majority of Canadians would approve of an arrangement whereby the RCMP is under contract to the House of Commons and the Senate to provide fully integrated security services, and reports to parliamentary authorities. It is a model that allows both [to] respects the separation of powers and the primacy of Parliament, and to ensure its safety through the RCMP. I therefore urge you to amend your motion to specifically state that RCMP security services on Parliament Hill would be governed by a service agreement between RCMP and Parliament of Canada, pursuant to which the RCMP would ultimately report to the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Speaker of the Senate.

Sincerely,

[Self]

As I mentioned, I have sent copies to the Prime Minister, the chief government whip, the leader of the official opposition, the leader of my party, and all other parliamentarians.

Why did I send that letter? It is because I am somewhat preoccupied with the fact that Motion No. 14 before us today could be interpreted different ways. I am not the only one who believes that. I have heard the leader of the Green Party and others mention that. It is not clear that it would stipulate that the RCMP, should it be the agency responsible for the integrated security of Parliament Hill, would be doing it under a service agreement by which it would be stipulated that it report to the parliamentary authorities. It is very important that we have that.

I am also a little concerned that the Speaker, after the events on October 22, informed the House that he would ask for a full review of security matters and how we should better integrate the security of parliamentarians, their staff and visitors. We have not seen that report yet. I know there was a committee appointed to look into that, but somehow things were expedited and we have not seen that report.

The Chief Government Whip advised the whips of the other parties on Wednesday of the last week the House was in session, in the afternoon or evening after the caucus meetings, and then proceeded to have a debate on the Friday, a very short day when not many members could address this matter. I was surprised it had been done that fast and then was even more surprised that the debate would end today. That means members have not had a chance to have their respective caucuses discuss this matter among themselves. That would have been a very useful exercise. Unfortunately, it does not seem that will happen.

That is why I considered this matter, did some research and proposed that the government consider amending its motion. The House procedures make it impossible for someone to propose an amendment to the motion once another amendment has been proposed. I can only propose a subamendment, which I will do later in my address, but then I have to address the amendment that has been proposed and not the motion of the government.

That is why I wrote to the government, hoping it would consider this. The government has nothing to lose amending its own motion to make it clear that the intent was not to have the RCMP be in charge of the security on the Hill and report to the government but to report to the House, and to make it clear through a contractual agreement, as has been done in other provinces, as our mother of Parliament has done in England. That would have made things much more clear and less subject to any interpretation or anyone wishing to challenge it and perhaps would have helped the Speaker of the House and the Speaker of the Senate ensure that this would happens, as opposed to perhaps being caught in other wishes, desires and pressures. It has not happened, and I am very sorry for that.

I am going to read parts of a text that has been printed in the National Newswatch, written by a lady by the name of Anne Dance. This lady is a history post-doctoral research fellow at Memorial University. She first began researching security and public space as part of the 2008-09 non-partisan Parliamentary Internship Programme. This was published last week. I will not read it all, but I would like to quote some parts of it, as follows:

—some do not seem to understand what Parliamentary Privilege actually is, or why it demands a fierce defence.

Once called Parliamentary democracy’s “beating heart” by House Clerk Audrey O’Brien, Privilege is a set of rules developed to protect legislatures from interventionary or violent governments (i.e. the executive; in Canada, this is the Prime Minister and the cabinet). Privilege prioritizes the work of Parliamentarians. Without Privilege, there is no guarantee that MPs and Senators will be able to control and manage Parliament, reach important votes, or carry out their jobs.

As emerging democracies well know, Parliamentary Privilege does not spring fully formed from a rulebook or constitution. Frighteningly easy to subvert or destroy in the name of patriotism or expediency, it must be carefully cultivated and protected.

Another paragraph reads:

Parliamentary Privilege is the hard-won legacy of centuries of struggle by democratic reformers both at home and abroad. It would be a shame for MPs and Senators to let it crumble without a fight.

I invite colleagues to read the rest of her article.

I am not here on a partisan basis. I am here out of respect for Parliament and its duties and powers, and the separation of powers of the government. We have three branches of government. We should never interfere with the judiciary. I know that in the past unfortunately some ministers did and they had to resign from their job. We respect the separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature.

The respect of the division of powers between the legislature and the executive must also be respected. Unless it is specified in the motion that the government has put before us that the RCMP would be reporting to the parliamentary authorities and not to the government, it can therefore be perceived as a way of undermining parliamentary privilege, Parliament's authority and the separation of powers. This should be something that none of us consider, and that is why I have brought it forward.

When I wrote this letter to all, the first response I got was from a friend of mine, who happens to be in the Senate and who happened to be the gentleman heading up the committee, Senator Vern White. He told me it was an excellent letter and that he agreed fully.

I want my colleagues to know that this preoccupation is not just shared by members of the third party or members of the official opposition. I have even had discussions with some of my colleagues on the government side, and it is shared by many of us in this room and of course, as I mentioned, in the upper house. It would have been a wise thing for the government to introduce such an amendment because I cannot introduce an amendment to the motion of the government.

I can only provide a subamendment, which will alter the amendment proposed by the official opposition. That is the nature of our parliamentary procedure. I wish I could have presented a substitute amendment or a substitute motion, but it cannot be done.

Therefore, I will move an amendment to the amendment. I move:

That the amendment be amended a) by adding after the words “fully integrate” the words “by way of a contractual agreement with the House of Commons and the Senate”;

b) by deleting the words “while respecting” and substituting the following “and through which an integrated security body would report to the Speakers of the two Houses so as to respect the division of powers between the executive and the legislature, parliamentary supremacy and”.

The rest of the amendment follows.

The subamendment is proposed by myself and seconded by my colleague from Winnipeg North. My colleague from Mount Royal would have seconded it as well, but he had to leave to attend a briefing on another bill that we will be debating soon, Bill C-51.

I do not know what will become of the amendment, but the House of Commons has to debate the need for the government's proposal to be clear and precise. Perhaps that was the government's intention, but it was not written in the resolution. That is the problem. It has to be specified—