John Duncan

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, February 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I think if you seek it you shall find agreement to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.

[Natural Resources, February 19th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I think most people know I am a man of few words. I did make a ministerial statement. I had to introduce it as a point of order because I interrupted some business and I took the opportunity not to interrupt somebody midstream. I took approximately one minute of the House's time and now the other points that have been made have taken many more minutes of the House's time. My statement was completely in keeping with the rules and normal procedures of the House.

[Natural Resources, February 19th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to table documents that highlight our government's ongoing commitment to provide the right conditions in Canada for industries and businesses to succeed and create new, well-paying jobs and economic growth that benefit all Canadians.

As I speak, the Prime Minister is in British Columbia announcing substantial new measures that will allow investors and facilities that liquify natural gas anywhere in Canada to recover their startup capital costs more quickly. These measures will ensure that Canadian natural gas can reach new and growing markets and make it accessible for new domestic uses.

For the benefit of parliamentarians, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, copies of the Prime Minister's announcement, the associated backgrounder, and the text of the regulations that will be enacted to implement these important job and economic growth measures.

[Points of Order, February 19th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, when we had the vote earlier today on the adjournment motion, we had a request for a clarification from the member for Ottawa—Orléans about the behaviour of the member for Winnipeg Centre during the vote. We had a ruling by the Speaker, which I think is going to prove to be very problematic without clarification that one should be in one's seat when the motion is read, throughout the voting, and right up until the count is made. One could read the Speaker's ruling as being quite different, and I do not think there was an intent to make a new precedent at that time.

Could you please clarify for everyone assembled that there is no change to the procedure for voting and that we are expected to be here from the time of the reading of the motion until the announcement of the count of the vote?

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 16th, 2015]

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.

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, once again, what the member is saying is that if we accept the partisan position of the NDP, everything will be fine, but we are not allowed to accept the position of the government. I think the member should listen to his own argument as to why we are not speaking with one voice on this issue.

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, yes, the RCMP will provide the operational lead for an integrated security force throughout the parliamentary precinct. The rationale is that the RCMP has access to extensive resources that other forces do not and has acquired extensive experience in security assessments and the information sharing essential to meeting the evolving threats of today.

There will be a detailed implementation plan developed over the coming months outlining a phased approach to deploying a fully integrated security model. All of that will be under the control of the Speakers.

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the motion actually creates a situation exactly to address the concern expressed by the member, and that is that our safety and security will be up to the Speakers. The motion empowers the Speakers to do exactly that.

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it occurs to me that something such as this should actually be a no-brainer. We should actually have been able to get to where the motion suggests we should be, without the necessity of the motion.

However, perhaps the public has a taste already from the official opposition that anything we try to move forward on will be politicized and there will be an attempt to create division because it thinks that is politically advantageous.

I suggest the motion would have the vast support of the majority of Canadians. It is what we need to protect Canadians who wish to visit this place.

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to be uninformed, it is another thing to be naive.

Through the House leaders and whips, we have been aware of changes that have been made around this place since October 22. I have certainly conveyed them to my caucus. If those changes have not been conveyed to you as a caucus, then I am not the one to ask about that. However, they are not things that I am going to put in my newsletter. I am will not suggest the things that we have done that will improve security around here in a specific fashion because we would only be potentially telling the wrong people things that they would love to know.

All I can say is there have been dramatic changes around here and if you have not seen them over the last three months, I am very surprised.