John Duncan

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 6th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, when people talk about separation of powers, they often reference the mother Parliament in the U.K. The U.K. has a unified security force, as do some other very important Commonwealth partners. Australia has a unified security force, which was put in place in 24 hours when officials realized that there was a real and present significant threat, and they worried about the details later.

I always have a difficult response when members of the opposition want to put words in the mouths of people who are not able to speak. Kevin Vickers was a non-partisan friend to all as the sergeant-at-arms in this place. We all respect him immensely. Many of us consider him a friend. I refuse to be baited by the opposition members, who wish to put words in his mouth that I know he would not say.

Finally, the politics being played here that have nothing to do with improving the security of this place are not contributing to this debate, and I hope the opposition members will back off their petty politics.

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 6th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, there have been ongoing discussions. This motion did not derive out of thin air. There have been a lot of discussions up until now to get to where we are. I addressed the constitutional question in my speech. The question of the immunity and privileges of members of Parliament will remain unaltered.

This is a thoughtful exercise and one that follows a model that has already largely been adopted in Australia and the U.K., based on real threat assessments that they felt they needed to respond to. This is something that we cannot continue to believe will not be the situation here.

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 6th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, this is a government-inspired initiative and an important measure that we wish to put into place. The transition plan will contain the details of how this would be achieved. The Speakers will be a very important part of that transition planning. They will lead that exercise.

Obviously, I have fully answered the question that has been asked of me. It is a government initiative and the government members will be supporting this initiative.

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 6th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I call that heckling at a time like this.

The integration of House of Commons and Senate parliamentary security is a necessary element, which would build upon a strong tradition of ensuring that protection and security are carried out effectively and efficiently in the face of evolving threats.

All decisions related to the integrated security force would ensure continuous employment for current parliamentary security staff and be consistent with the existing collective agreements. Security staff serve a variety of important functions, which we expect will continue under the integrated security force. If there are any staff reductions that result, they would be done through natural attrition.

While there is a proud tradition and a proud culture in this institution and in our protective services, recent events can only lead us to conclude that an integrated security force is essential in our buildings and on the grounds.

Canadians have much to celebrate, including the upcoming 150th anniversary as a Confederation. We know we are able to compete at the highest level in every field field of human endeavour, so it is only right that we apply ourselves to implementing best practices to achieve a seamless and integrated security in this place.

We owe it to the family who is visiting from France. We owe it to the mother and child who are visiting from Vancouver. We owe it to our respected diplomatic guests who graciously attend our official events. We owe it to our esteemed security staff members who require a solid framework so they can do what they do best. We owe it to our parliamentary staff members. We also owe it to our elected officials who have taken an oath to protect the public interest.

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 6th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious subject, and I do not appreciate being heckled.

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 6th, 2015]

moved:

Motion No. 14

That this House, following the terrorist attack of October 22, 2014, recognize the necessity of fully integrated security throughout the Parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill, as recommended by the Auditor General in his 2012 report and as exists in other peer legislatures; and call on the Speaker, in coordination with his counterpart in the Senate, to invite, without delay, 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.

Mr. Speaker, I am a proud Canadian. I have always been a proud Canadian. My family are all proud Canadians, and everyone in the chamber and watching this debate is a proud Canadian. This is a good starting place.

Canada is a true symbol of democracy in the world today. We live in the best country in the world, and one thing that is valued greatly is that we are a safe country. That is the first duty of the federal government to maintain and enhance.

This government has become a global leader in upholding democratic values and protecting human rights. Under the leadership of our Prime Minister, Canada has gained prominence for our moral clarity in the universal fight against terror. Through its spirited initiatives, Canada's influence on the international stage has grown and matured immensely.

Parliament Hill is the most important symbol of Canadian democracy. We have an obligation to protect this symbolic institution and to ensure the safety of visitors, employees, and elected officials. It is imperative for security within Parliament Hill to be integrated and enhanced.

We particularly owe a standard of care to Canadian visitors and international visitors to Parliament Hill. Public access must be maintained within a protective framework. Canadians cannot but be influenced by international events, and we then witnessed the event of October 20, with the murder of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, followed by the events of October 22 at the National War Memorial, with the killing of Corporal Nathan Cirillo and the subsequent attack on Parliament.

More recently, the terrorist attack at Charlie Hebdo headquarters in Paris has strongly reaffirmed our concerns that terrorism knows no boundaries and that in order to maintain our freedoms we must secure ourselves in the optimum way.

The Auditor General's report, in 2012, indicated the need for an integrated parliamentary security force. While we believe that the ongoing unification of the House of Commons and Senate security services is a good first step, a fully integrated security force is also required.

On October 22, there were four distinct police security services, each with its own jurisdiction between the Parliament buildings and the National War Memorial. These were the House of Commons Security Services, the Senate Protective Service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the Ottawa Police Service. It is overdue that Parliament has an integrated security force to ensure seamless response to threats.

Today's motion is an administrative starting point to create, under the operational command of the RCMP, a fully integrated parliamentary security force which will provide for one chain of command and one point of accountability. The RCMP has a national presence that has access to rapid response training, security assessments, and intelligence, which are all essential in meeting today's evolving threats.

Today's motion calls upon the Speakers of the House and Senate to invite the RCMP to lead this operational security. I have confidence that the Speakers will ensure that this unified force will not alter or negatively impact the existing immunities and essential parliamentary privileges of members of Parliament. This enhanced security model will provide protection for visitors and parliamentarians, balanced with the goal of ensuring reasonable access to our Parliament for all Canadians.

The Auditor General identified that it is necessary to balance the desired level of access with sufficient security to ensure that risks are mitigated. The security measures implemented by the new integrated security unit for the parliamentary precinct will have policy oversight from parliamentary authorities.

It is the government's objective to advance the transition with all security stakeholders as soon as possible. A transition committee coordinated by the Speakers of both Houses will work with senior officials on a transition plan.

The House of Commons security force is a backbone of Parliament Hill. Their individual efforts and courage on October 22, 2014 are admired and respected to the highest degree, and we thank them.

[Committees of the House, February 4th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent that the members who voted on the motion for concurrence at the report stage of Bill C-32 be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Conservative members voting yea.

[Committees of the House, February 4th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I think if you seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent to apply the vote on the motion for concurrence at report stage of Bill C-32, which the members here voted on, to the current motion before the House, with the Conservative members voting yea.

[Points of Order, January 29th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, after the votes last night, I had numerous other members of my caucus who were sitting toward that end of the chamber tell me that they had actually witnessed this and that at several points, the tablet, or whatever device it was, was displayed in such a way as to pan what was going on here. It was clearly visible to other members of the chamber.

This is very disruptive. This is completely inappropriate. It is against all the rules. It went on for an extended period of time and created a fair amount of consternation.

I think this should be nipped in the bud, just to ensure that we do not have a perpetuation of this kind of activity.

[Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, January 29th, 2015]

moved for leave to introduce Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

(Motions deemed adopted and bill read the first time)