House of Commons Hansard #172 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was rcmp.

Topics

Consideration Resumed of MotionParliamentary Precinct SecurityGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

Order. The hon. member must be aware that once he has moved the motion he cannot speak to it again.

The amendment to the amendment by the official opposition is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. Chief Government Whip.

Consideration Resumed of MotionParliamentary Precinct SecurityGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

Vancouver Island North B.C.

Conservative

John Duncan ConservativeMinister of State and Chief Government Whip

Mr. Speaker, I would make some comments with respect to the speech by the member for Ottawa—Vanier. He talked about a response to his letter that was written by Senator White, and I could have written that response.

The member's letter, of which I received a copy, was a good letter. My comment to my own people was that this was absolutely consistent with the motion. Our motion empowers the Speakers to coordinate the development of an agreement, such as the examples that have just been given by the member. He talked about the example in British Columbia. He talked about the U.K. model. This is exactly what is contemplated. This is exactly what will flow from the motion.

Why will the member not accept yes for an answer? This is a superfluous subamendment.

Consideration Resumed of MotionParliamentary Precinct SecurityGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON

Mr. Speaker, this has not been specifically included in the motion. There is no reference in the original motion that the RCMP would report to the parliamentary authorities. It says respect this and that, but it does not mention division of powers in the motion. There also is no mention of a contractual agreement that would include a reporting mechanism to the parliamentary authorities. If it were in the motion, I would not have done this.

I will give a very modest example of why I believe it is important. I have been stopped four times, the last time was yesterday, by RCMP officers at the main entrance point who do not speak French, and that is not acceptable.

I have written to the Speaker but never have never received a response. The Speaker has no authority, it seems, or if he does, he has not exercised it because there is no contractual agreement.

There has to be a contractual agreement so that we respect certain things, including the official languages of our country, but more than that, the supremacy of Parliament, the division of powers. If it were mentioned in the motion, I would have no difficulties. It is not mentioned in the motion and that is why I think it should be.

Consideration Resumed of MotionParliamentary Precinct SecurityGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my thanks as well to the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier. It is very clear that this motion before us is so vague as to leave substantial grounds for the concerns that I share with the member for Ottawa—Vanier and that the official opposition shares.

There should be no objection on the part of government members, if this is a question of accepting that we already have a yes for an answer, to accept the amendment of the member for Ottawa—Vanier and let the motion be clear.

I am sorry if government members do not agree, and I will ask my hon. colleague for Ottawa—Vanier if he does, but it is very clear that what we have before us amounts to a demotion of our House of Commons security team. It amounts to a very rapid decision to change the way this Parliament functions, and we have not had any adequate opportunity to see the evidence and hear from experts when we contemplate the best way forward.

We all agree we need a unified, single security force which is well integrated and can communicate clearly, one with the other, but this motion is unacceptable.

Consideration Resumed of MotionParliamentary Precinct SecurityGovernment Orders

6:45 p.m.

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON

Mr. Speaker, I also agree that a united security force would be the way to go, and that we must respect our current employees, both in the House and the Senate, who have protected us, our visitors and staff.

If the government whip is saying that is what they will do, I would be happy with that, but it is not in the motion. We are being asked to vote on something that is not included in the motion. That causes some concern. I am not the only one who has cause for concern. Members in the House, the official opposition, have read about it. I have had discussions with some members on the government side. It would be so simple to clarify it by saying that the RCMP must report to parliamentary authority through a contractual agreement. It is not said. It is not in the motion

I do not know what will happen tonight with the votes. However, I will engage beyond tonight with our Speaker if this is not included because I think he will need our support to make sure that is indeed what happens. It would have been very simple, very clear, if it had been included in the motion. That is why I wrote to the government to see if it would be willing to put it in. I have not had that, so I am going to try it this way tonight.

Consideration Resumed of MotionParliamentary Precinct SecurityGovernment Orders

6:45 p.m.

NDP

Marc-André Morin NDP Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to keeping its word, this government cannot be trusted.

We saw this last week, when the Conservatives voted against a motion that asked the government to keep its word. In fact, we cannot trust their judgment either. People went on strike because they were too tired and they wanted to prevent rail accidents as a result of their fatigue. I heard that things had been settled, but the Conservatives were ready to pass a bill forcing them back to work.

On October 22, I was right beside the door to our meeting room when a bullet struck it. I was very worried. That day, it was our security staff who neutralized the threat. However, we are going to entrust the responsibility for our security to the people who let that man run across the precinct with a rifle. I do not understand that.

I would like someone to explain it to me, if there is an intelligent explanation.

Consideration Resumed of MotionParliamentary Precinct SecurityGovernment Orders

6:45 p.m.

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that question was intended for me.

Having been in this place for 20 years now, I have as much respect for our security guards in the House of Commons and the Senate as I do for the RCMP officers.

I moved this motion and sent this letter to the government simply because I wanted to make sure that, by means of a contractual agreement, the supremacy of Parliament, the separation of powers and the rights of parliamentarians will be respected, so that we will be able to do our work.

If that is the government's intention, as the Chief Government Whip seems to be saying, why was that not included in the motion that has been presented to us? That is the mistake I am trying to correct.

Consideration Resumed of MotionParliamentary Precinct SecurityGovernment Orders

6:45 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, first I must applaud my colleague from Ottawa—Vanier for taking the initiative to put on the record, through writing a letter, an idea that he is advancing. After his speech, the government then responded by saying that it concurs with what is being said in the letter.

I am an optimist. I am not too sure if this amendment will ultimately pass. I would like to see it pass. However, if it does not, the Speaker and others will have a copy of a very important letter that can often be referred to.

I would be interested in his take on this issue. The government seems to be endorsing, through the government House leadership, the letter that the member has written. I am wondering whether he might want to provide some comment on that aspect, the fact that we now have a formal letter that the member wrote and the government seems to be endorsing.

Is there some merit to that, just in case his subamendment does not pass?

Consideration Resumed of MotionParliamentary Precinct SecurityGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON

Mr. Speaker, it would have been better if I had received a written response. I have not. I have had discussions today with some members of the governing party. I think they would not disagree with this way of going about it; that is, that the RCMP do it within a contractual agreement that specifies it must report to the parliamentary authorities, with respect, of course, for our current staff. I hoped that would be the case.

We have been asked tonight to vote on this in a rather precipitated manner because we have not had a chance to discuss it in caucus or see the report that the speaker has engaged to share with us. We are now asked to vote without all of that. I would have wanted to see a resolution that included these things, and it does not. That is why I am proposing that it does.

Consideration Resumed of MotionParliamentary Precinct SecurityGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

Conservative

David Wilks Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on this topic tonight.

House of Commons Security Services preserve a delicate balance between protecting Parliamentarians and the functions of Parliament, and respecting the right of Canadians to have access to the Precinct and their legislators.

The development and implementation of a long-term plan is an important opportunity to address requirements for efficient and effective security, in particular a Parliamentary Precinct with clear physical boundaries. The plan must allow for a layered system of access control and a solid infrastructure for security systems that lays the groundwork for current and future requirements.

The quote I just made is from the explanation of Parliament security on the government website.

I started my speech from that because of the last nine words on laying the groundwork for current and future requirements.

Before I go any further, I will be sharing my time with the member for Don Valley West.

Security for this place dates back to the 1860s. The site itself was chosen because of its natural topography along the east, north, and west parameters. The wrought iron gates that are found to the south of the Precinct and still stand today were built for security. The large lawn area was in itself a security feature. Inside the buildings, there is a layered approach, with lobbies and vestibules acting as buffer zones between outdoor spaces and the important meeting rooms and offices.

Since that time, the need for security in and around government buildings has increased substantially, responding to new challenges in Canada and to events and circumstances around the world.

There have been a number of security breaches over the years at this place, and a review is done after each one of them to determine how this place could better enhance security. One of the recommendations throughout the years has been communication protocols to ensure coordination of security efforts among the various jurisdictions, which I think is important here.

This place is known as the people's place. It has a high risk of vulnerability, and none was more evident than that on October 22, 2014, when a lone gunman was able to enter this place, and, in my opinion, show some of the glaring problems because we are unwilling to enhance security for the sake of history.

Again, the government website on precinct security says the following:

The boundaries should have a clear physical definition, which can serve as an intrinsic part of security measures;

There should be an adequate buffer zone around the buildings and the Precinct; and

There should be clearly defined and easily accessible zones for the public and the media.

Further in the same document is a reference to infrastructure, which says:

There should be an adequate technological infrastructure to meet current and future security needs. This infrastructure should:

Integrate and standardize systems across the Precinct;

Be simple to use and unobtrusive to occupants and visitors;

Provide internal security forces with external viewing capability;

Provide communication infrastructure that allows for immediate links with primary response partners;

In my opinion, not one of these has been accomplished, because we have been in a multi-silo security detail. Let me explain why we must, as soon as possible, create a single, overarching security team in what is referred to as the precinct. We have to remember as well that the precinct is not just this building; as everyone knows, it goes from the justice department on Kent Street all the way up to Wellington Street. It is a significant area.

I want to speak a bit about the RCMP, because it has come into this conversation a lot.

The RCMP has been a national police force since 1873 when it was created under an act of Parliament in this place. The RCMP is unique because it encompasses federal, provincial, and municipal policing bodies. It provides total federal policing services to all Canadians and police services under contract to three territories, eight provinces, more than 190 communities, 600 aboriginal communities, and three international airports.

RCMP protective services are responsible for over 125 embassies and high commissions in the national capital region, the protection of 500 resident foreign diplomat missions across approximately 500 foreign consulates across Canada, the security of approximately 500 visits by foreign dignitaries and international protected persons per year. It responds to approximately 600 demonstrations a year on average.

The RCMP has a highly integrated intelligence system and an extremely efficient communications system, but most importantly, it has manpower that can be mobilized very quickly. Creating that efficiency in this precinct is a progression of security. In my opinion it has nothing to do with picking sides, as the opposition would like to portray it, but rather with creating an elite team charged with protecting this place both inside and out.

Let us make no mistake: it is not a matter of “if” the next incident occurs here, but rather a matter of when. An integrated unit overseen by one body would be able to communicate much better and react much more quickly. We have to learn from the events that took place here, and October 22, 2014, provided us with a valuable lesson to which we must react. Most importantly, an integrated unit would be provided with the best equipment, technology, and communication available to work as one, and that, as parliamentarians, is what we owe them.

I listened and I want to provide some context to where I believe this needs to go.

It is clear in the motion that was put forward by this government last week, which said at the bottom, “...while respecting the privileges, immunities and powers of the respective Houses, and ensuring the continued employment of our existing and respected Parliamentary Security staff.”

I do not believe it needs to speak any louder than that itself.

Consideration Resumed of MotionParliamentary Precinct SecurityGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

NDP

Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I will ask him a very simple question because he gave a long description of all the RCMP's responsibilities. However, ultimately, the sergeant-at-arms could coordinate these security forces.

Why does he not have faith in the sergeant-at-arms, who is responsible for security here in the House of Commons?

Consideration Resumed of MotionParliamentary Precinct SecurityGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Conservative

David Wilks Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC

Mr. Speaker, the problem is not the sergeant-at-arms; the problem is that we have multiple silos of security. We have two in here, one outside, and one beyond the gates, but the main ones are the three.

The fact of the matter is that we need one person in charge of all of the precinct, both inside and out, to better reflect how security needs to be completed in this day and age. We cannot live with history and the past. We have learnt from October 22. Let us move forward, recognizing how important it is to have security both inside and out and recognizing the expertise of those both inside and out.

Consideration Resumed of MotionParliamentary Precinct SecurityGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, prior to the member speaking, my colleague from Ottawa—Vanier moved a subamendment that calls for the Speaker, in coordination with his counterpart in the Senate, to prepare and execute without delay plans to “fully integrate by way of a contractual agreement with the House of Commons and the Senate” .

The previous government speaker, part of the House leadership team on that side, indicated that this is in fact what they believe as well. If that is the case, would the member not concur that this subamendment is worthy of supporting?

Consideration Resumed of MotionParliamentary Precinct SecurityGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Conservative

David Wilks Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the motion that was put forth last week is very clear. It recognizes the importance of this place and how it should move forward.

I believe that the motion put forward by the member opposite does not reflect how the government needs to move forward and I am very comfortable with what the government whip had to say.

Consideration Resumed of MotionParliamentary Precinct SecurityGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Selkirk—Interlake Manitoba

Conservative

James Bezan ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Kootenay—Columbia for his intervention today, as well as for his experience as a veteran of the RCMP.

All of us here recognize the value of the protection that we receive from the parliamentary protection services, whether they are at the House of Commons or the Senate, as well as the great training that they have and the risk that they are always prepared to take to protect us. What this motion speaks to is the need to move forward to a more coordinated role by making sure that we get rid the silos and that everybody is working together.

My colleague has clearly laid out how things differentiate within the House and the Senate as well as what happens outside of Centre Block and what happens beyond the fence. Communication, leadership, and coordination are what this motion is all about. It is not only about enhancing protection to us up here, because the risk factors are changing. We realize that now. As my colleague said, it is just a matter of time before the next attack.

How can we better coordinate? We have already seen some major changes take place. More security officers being trained in handgun use, and we are making sure that we receive protection not only for parliamentarians but also for all the Canadians and foreigners who come to visit us here on Parliament Hill.

Consideration Resumed of MotionParliamentary Precinct SecurityGovernment Orders

7:05 p.m.

Conservative

David Wilks Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC

Mr. Speaker, he hit the nail on the head. The fact of the matter is that if we can provide the security detail in this place with the best equipment, the best technology, and the best communication so that they can work as one, we will find this to be a very well-oiled machine.

Consideration Resumed of MotionParliamentary Precinct SecurityGovernment Orders

7:05 p.m.

Conservative

John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate in this important debate tonight.

I have listened to many on both sides of the aisle debating this issue. It is an issue that is obviously a very emotional one for all of us who were here on October 22. It is one that we want to get right. This debate is important, and my only caution to those speaking to this issue is that they not inflame the issue or create an environment from which they cannot come back.

The government has a significant duty in the face of emerging global threats, and I believe it is the government's responsibility to protect our parliamentary precinct. The previous speaker spoke very well about the extent of this precinct, how large it is, and the importance of getting it right the first time to protect visitors, families, schoolchildren and all those who come to this place. They are intent on seeing history and seeing this place for what it is, a remarkable landmark in this country that we have a duty to protect. Our job is to ensure that we have the right security environment to protect parliamentary staff and elected officials.

Parliament Hill is a key symbol of Canadian democracy, and failure to protect it absolutely demonstrates failure to uphold the values upon which it was built. The people of this great country have put their faith in our commitment to serve and protect the public interest. That is every one of us in this House.

The public interest demands a unified parliamentary security system that allows for one chain of command and one point of accountability. Bureaucratic barriers or silos are an impediment to meeting today's evolving threats. This is why we must ensure that we have an effective, efficient, integrated security force.

The threat of terror is a daunting reality in today's world. We witnessed this first-hand in this very building on October 22. The attack on Corporal Nathan Cirillo at the National War Memorial and then the attack on Parliament Hill were reminders of the reality encompassing terrorism and its grave consequences.

The recent events at Charlie Hebdo headquarters in Paris only reaffirmed these sentiments, sparking pro-democracy demonstrations worldwide. Just this past weekend, similar shootings took place in Denmark during a freedom of speech debate, and other callous and horrific acts of terrorism are occurring around the world as we stand here tonight.

On October 22, there were four different groups of police and security services in and surrounding this very precinct: the House of Commons Security Services, the Senate Protective Service, the RCMP, and the Ottawa city police. The Auditor General's report of 2012 indicated the need for a more integrated parliamentary security system that clearly defined the roles and responsibilities of our security staff.

While we believe that the unification of the House of Commons and Senate security services is a good first step, a fully integrated security force is the best step at this time. It is significant to note that the report particularly identified that:

It is necessary to balance the desired level of access with sufficient security to ensure that risks are mitigated.

This motion today calls upon the Speakers of the House of Commons and the Senate to invite the RCMP to take operational lead on integrating parliamentary security.

The RCMP has a national presence that has access to rapid response training, security assessments, and intelligence that are essential at this time. I am confident that the Speakers will fulfill their roles and ensure that existing immunities and essential parliamentary privileges are maintained.

Specific to the motion, I would just like to read the one paragraph that I feel captures the concerns of all members of this House. It calls upon:

...the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to lead operational security throughout the Parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill, while respecting the privileges, immunities and powers of the respective Houses, and ensuring the continued employment of our existing and respected Parliamentary Security staff.

Other countries, including strong allies such as the United Kingdom and Australia, have already pursued integrated security models in their own parliaments, confirming the essential nature of this initiative. Given the urgency of the matter, it is the government's objective to advance the transition in partnership with all security partners as soon as feasible. I understand that a transition committee coordinated by the Speakers of the House of Commons and the Senate will work with senior officials on a clear transition path.

Our parliamentary security force is a pillar of Parliament Hill. The courageous efforts of its individual members on October 22 will forever be admired and respected. We all owe them our sincere thanks. The Sergeant-at-Arms and all those we recognized in this chamber not too many weeks ago are a clear reminder to us of the great respect we feel for the members of the security staff on all quadrants.

Today's debate though has seen members of the opposition point fingers and blame, something that concerns me greatly. Casting fault, planting seeds of dissension, discord, and division is not the way we will bring about a productive solution that will work for the House. That approach, in my mind, is shameful and reprehensible, and we cannot allow it to occur in this debate.

All of the decisions to be taken will ensure the continued employment of the current security staff and be consistent with existing collective agreements. This will be managed with full transparency. Integrating parliamentary security is essentially meant to help our security team work together through focusing on a centralized plan.

The threat of terror is frightfully tangible and should not be underestimated. The truth is that we cannot allow October 22 to repeat itself. We have heard tonight and from others throughout the day that this was a first attack, that there will be more, and that we must be prepared. We simply cannot be ill-prepared for another such occurrence as we experienced on October 22. We owe it to Canadians and to visitors to do what is necessary to ensure that Parliament Hill, a key symbol of Canadian democracy, is kept safe and secure for them to visit and for us to work in this environment.

I look forward to questions and am thankful for the opportunity to participate in tonight's debate.

Consideration Resumed of MotionParliamentary Precinct SecurityGovernment Orders

7:10 p.m.

NDP

Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

In his report, the Auditor General indicated that the next step could be to unify the security forces on Parliament Hill under a single point of command, making it possible to respond to situations more efficiently and effectively. However, the Auditor General never says that they should report to anyone other than the sergeant-at-arms and the House of Commons security services. In fact, paragraph 67 of the report states the following:

67. We found that the House of Commons Security Services has implemented controls based on accepted security practices, and has adjusted its actions according to intelligence received.

The Auditor General already established that the sergeant-at-arms and his staff were up to the task. Why does the government want to bring in the RCMP?

Consideration Resumed of MotionParliamentary Precinct SecurityGovernment Orders

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General's report clearly identified the need to bring unification and streamlining to remove silos, to remove division, to bring together all of the different policing entities involved in this place and throughout this precinct. But it is also notable that there has to be one key to leadership. That key, I believe, is clearly enunciated in the motion today, where the RCMP is identified as the ideal solution to creating the leadership necessary to work together and coordinate these efforts under one organizational level.

Consideration Resumed of MotionParliamentary Precinct SecurityGovernment Orders

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that leadership is necessary. Like the member across the way, I am not a security expert. I look to receive the best advice that we can get. We have been provided some very solid and tangible advice, and I believe, as a whole, we are moving in that direction. In fact, I will be voting in favour of the government's motion.

The concern I have is with an issue of clarity, and my colleague from Ottawa, for example, is providing more clarity. I do not see that as a ganging-up, saying that the motion is not worthy of support per se, but maybe that there is a way that we can enhance the motion. For example, the motion mentions, “...while respecting the privileges, immunities and powers of the respective Houses” and talks about the continued employment of our existing and respected parliamentary staff.

Yes, we support these things, but does the member not recognize that there are ways that we can maybe make the issue a bit clearer by, for example, accepting the motion as presented by the member for Ottawa, just for purposes of clarity?

Consideration Resumed of MotionParliamentary Precinct SecurityGovernment Orders

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear that the member opposite will be supporting the motion, because I think it is important. In fact, I think it is important that the entire House supports the motion unanimously and brings this about as quickly as possible.

As a point of interest, I have heard the former sergeant-at-arms' name brought up multiple times. Clearly, the sergeant-at-arms of the day, Kevin Vickers, is a hero to most us, and likely to all of us, in this chamber. His heroics on that day were an example to us all of what a remarkable individual he was in leading his team and organization.

I do believe that this motion, which mentions our “...respecting the privileges, immunities and powers of the respective Houses”, shows the House's great esteem for all of the parliamentary security staff and their tenure, et cetera. I have no doubt about that. I do not think there is anyone in this place who would contest that. However, I think we must have leadership and that the leadership provided for in the motion would meet that objective.

Consideration Resumed of MotionParliamentary Precinct SecurityGovernment Orders

7:15 p.m.

NDP

Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Northwest Territories.

I am very proud to rise today to speak to this motion and to share my constituents' views.

I would first like to say that there is a real problem with the fact that this is a government motion. The NDP is seriously concerned that a motion, which would have a direct impact on the security of parliamentarians and on the institution of Parliament itself, is coming from the Prime Minister's Office, even though it is a so-called government motion.

Our role here in this place is not necessarily to accept the government's bills, but to check them and study them. This is what we call oversight. It is our role as parliamentarians to oversee government bills. In this case, we are not even dealing with a bill; we are dealing with a motion. This motion did not come from a member. It did not come from the Speaker's office or the Board of Internal Economy, which was mandated to examine the issue of parliamentary security. In fact, the Board of Internal Economy is still examining the issue and, as far as I know, did not draft this motion. I think that the motion came straight from the Prime Minister's Office.

Conservative members themselves have said so. For example, I heard them say:

the government must move forward on this.

The government must move forward on this? I am sorry, but the government does not have a say in this. The government should be listening to parliamentarians. It is the complete polar opposite of what needs to be happening in this place.

We have seen time and again that a number of MPs in this place consider their role to be that of cheerleader for the government. That is not the role of Parliament. The role of Parliament is for MPs to represent their constituents and to bring forward their concerns about issues posed by the government.

We have a democracy in Canada that is different from the American democracy and from many other democracies. Parliamentary democracy is essentially one where we have a government that sits in this House at the same time as parliamentarians. I want to make it clear that if someone is not a minister, that person is not in government. Their role is to defend this place, defend its obligations, and to defend the interests of their constituents. In this case, I do not think this motion would respect that.

In the case of all the people who brought forward motions or amendments to the motion, they all agree on one thing, that we need a fully integrated security system in this Parliament. No one has said anything different. I keep hearing from members on the government side that we live in a number of silos and that this motion would fix that. Everyone in this House, as far as I can see, agrees that we should have an integrated security system. The Board of Internal Economy is actually investigating this matter at the moment. The Speaker has been investigating this matter. We keep referring back to the Auditor General, and the government's motion actually mentions that the Auditor General agrees that there should be a more integrated security service.

No one, except the Prime Minister's Office and those who want to represent that office in this place, is proposing that integration means that it should be under the control of the RCMP, albeit with some deference toward the Speaker's office.

We need a system where the Speaker actually is the defender of this place, and not a situation where we have a security service that, in theory, would have shared responsibilities as far as having to respect authority structures is concerned. An RCMP officer is not going to be trained to respect the Speaker's office; an RCMP officer is trained to respect his or her hierarchy. When it comes to this place, it has to be clear that the Speaker's office has complete control.

If the RCMP were to be in control of this place, we might end up in a situation like we saw in Ontario, under what I believe was the Harris government at the time, when there were many demonstrations held at Queen's Park. Parliamentarians in Ontario decided that it was a mistake for provincial police to be responsible for security in their parliament and decided to go the opposite way of this motion, which was that the security measures would be the responsibility of the assembly itself. That was a wise decision, and that example is being forgotten with the motion that was brought forward today.

For some reason, the example in Ontario, which I think a number of people who sit on the other side actually experienced first-hand, has been forgotten. Now they talk about integration as if it is something they have some unique and limited understanding of. I do not think members in this place want to abdicate their responsibilities. The Prime Minister's Office has put forward a motion, and some people refer to the Auditor General's report as if it supports this motion. I have read that report and I do not see that support anywhere. What I saw on October 22 was that a number of security agents employed by this place did their jobs admirably, to the point of heroism.

Most Canadians saw the videotapes of what happened that day, and the evidence is clear. The best security was found inside this place and not outside this place. Outside this place, the RCMP were responsible for the grounds. I did not see any acts that would have protected individuals, be it the public or parliamentarians, outside of this place. The only acts I saw that were done in a heroic and incredibly responsible fashion were those done in this place.

To say that RCMP security is better trained and better prepared to take care of a crisis situation neglects the recent history we have experienced. We need to clearly see that there are many other options that are currently being debated. This motion short-circuits that debate and brings it in line with what the Prime Minister's Office wants. If that debate is to happen, all parliamentarians should have an opportunity to speak to it with greater information than they have today.

A motion short-circuits the process that legislation would normally have brought forward. We do not have time to debate this fully. We do not have the facts we need to look at this properly, and it is being rammed down our throats with limited debate. All of these things are an affront to the parliamentary institution.

Again, the role of this place is to have oversight on government bills. It is not simply to look at the text and say, “The government makes perfect sense every time and let's vote in favour of it”. The opposition parties have proposed amendments that I think make sense. The amendment that the NDP put forward respects the nature of this place much more than the main motion ever will. The main motion is an affront. The office of the Speaker is responsible for ensuring the safety of this place. This motion would take some of that power away.

We need to understand that the RCMP is not directly answerable to this place. The RCMP is answerable to the government. The RCMP is a government institution and exists to defend the interests of government. Were there to be protests, for instance, on Parliament Hill, I would much rather that Parliament's security take care of them than an agency under the control of the Prime Minister's Office.

We have seen it time and again. I will remind people of the demonstrations that occurred in Vancouver under the previous Chrétien administration, in which some security agents used very extreme measures to control protesters. This place should not be showing that kind of example to those who want to express themselves. They should be showing an example where their right to express themselves might be curtailed by government order. They need to know that parliamentarians have their backs. They need to know that parliamentarians are doing their jobs, and in doing their jobs they should be voting against this motion.

Consideration Resumed of MotionParliamentary Precinct SecurityGovernment Orders

7:25 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am going to support the motion, but with trepidation. We all know, as we saw several weeks ago in another Commonwealth parliament, what happens when executive power and security forces are abused. Therefore, I will be supporting the motion, but with trepidation.

My comments reflect the views of many members of Parliament on both sides of the aisle who have not had a chance to speak to the motion because of closure. Mr. Speaker, I hope that you and the other Speakers of the House, along with the clerks, will take into account my remarks when translating the motion into agreements or into contracts.

I support the unification of the security services on Parliament Hill, but it is important that we maintain the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government. In other words, it is important that the RCMP on the Hill report exclusively to Speakers of the Commons and Speakers of the Senate and not to the Solicitor General of Canada. In other words, the final decision-making authority should rest exclusively with the Speakers of both respected chambers and not with the executive branch of government, the cabinet, or any minister, such as the Solicitor General.

Consideration Resumed of MotionParliamentary Precinct SecurityGovernment Orders

February 16th, 2015 / 7:30 p.m.

NDP

Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member. I would certainly then encourage him to vote against the motion if that is how he feels because I do not see how the main motion is going to reflect what he said at all. He needs to look at this carefully and decide whether he can in all good honesty support a motion that will not fulfill the concerns he has raised at this point.

Consideration Resumed of MotionParliamentary Precinct SecurityGovernment Orders

7:30 p.m.

NDP

Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for his speech.

There has not been enough emphasis on the fundamental importance of the legislative branch. That independence is both desirable and desired. In Canada, the executive branch has a lot of power. Members of the executive branch of government are all MPs, and that leads to accountability problems. Therefore, it makes sense that the Speaker, as someone who is independent from the executive branch, should have full authority to protect freedom of circulation and expression for all members of the House.

I would like the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine to elaborate on the importance of the independent legislative branch to which we all belong.