Nycole Turmel

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 6th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I will start over to ensure that the Conservatives hear what I have to say.

I will cite the reference on the traditions and procedures of the House, the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice by O'Brien and Bosc. The Speaker's role in matters of security is described on page 324:

The right of each House of Parliament to regulate its own internal affairs also extends to the management of the premises “within the precinct and beyond the debating Chamber …”. As guardian of the rights and privileges of the House, the Speaker ensures that they are respected within and outside the House. Within the precinct, the Speaker oversees matters of security and policing. Security within the buildings occupied by Members and staff of the House is the responsibility of the Sergeant-at-Arms, who acts under the Speaker’s authority (The Senate maintains its own security force in buildings occupied by Senators and Senate staff.). For this purpose, the House maintains its own security service. Arrangements are in place whereby the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) is charged with security of the grounds outside the buildings. There are occasions when the House security staff request and receive assistance from outside police forces, whether the RCMP or the local police. It is also well established that outside police forces wishing to enter the parliamentary buildings must first obtain permission from the Speaker to do so, and that the authority to grant or withhold such permission rests with the Speaker, who exercises sole discretion in this regard.

My first question regarding the motion is this: why does the government believe that the House of Commons security services and the role of the Speaker should suddenly be under the control of the RCMP and that the Speaker's authority to grant or refuse permission for the RCMP to enter this place should disappear?

The wording of the motion suggests that the terrible attack perpetrated by a disturbed individual on October 22, 2014, that resulted in the death of a Canadian corporal who was standing guard at at the National War Memorial justifies these changes. The motion alludes to the attack as a terrorist attack. However, this government and the RCMP have never been able to produce any evidence to prove that the October 22 attack was organized by a terrorist group or that the criminal responsible was associated with any terrorist group.

All we have is the slogan that the Prime Minister likes to repeat over and over again, even though it cannot be justified. In fact, the only evidence that the RCMP claimed was proof that the attack was motivated by terrorism—a video made by the gunman—was never made public. This does nothing to increase the public's confidence in how the RCMP is conducting this investigation.

Nonetheless, some facts about the events that occurred on that terrible day are now clear. On October 22, 2014, the RCMP had a number of officers on duty within the perimeter. For a variety of reasons, they were unable to keep the killer, who was openly carrying a gun, from crossing a busy street in downtown Ottawa, crossing the grounds of Parliament Hill and hijacking a car that he drove to the doors of the Centre Block. Those facts are clear.

There are a number of videos available to the public that show these events. Many Canadians have seen them. What is also clear is the heroic role that was played by the unarmed constables with the House of Commons security services throughout that terrible day. Constable Samearn Son, from our security service, was wounded by the killer when he intercepted him as he entered the building, and he alerted the other guards in the Hall of Honour. What is clear is that the men and women in the Parliament buildings that day, most of whom are members of the House of Commons security service, are the ones who stopped and eventually took down this armed man.

Kevin Vickers, the head of security, was given a lot of credit. He was completely deserving of that credit, not only because of his individual efforts but because of the performance of his devoted staff. Our security service is known for its excellent training and professionalism.

If find our government's response to this attack absolutely shocking. The government is going to give the RCMP, which failed in its duty that day, jurisdiction over the security force that managed to stop the attack, our House of Commons security service.

The fact that the motion uses the October 22 attack as an excuse to give the RCMP more power is shameful. It is an insult to the brave men and women who protected us so well that day.

As I mentioned earlier, there is no doubt that security on the Hill needs to be better integrated and coordinated. Better communication, better equipment and better training are also needed. Our people need more resources, and I know that my colleagues on both sides of the House have already supported the idea of giving them more. The official opposition will also support the full integration of the House of Commons and Senate security services.

This motion would have us believe that the idea of having the RCMP take over the Parliament Hill security services was somehow suggested by the Auditor General in his 2012 report on the administration of the House of Commons.

I have read this report, and on the contrary, it clearly states that integrating the security services would significantly improve security on Parliament Hill. The Auditor General never said that the RCMP had to take control here. In my opinion, any reference to the Auditor General in this motion is incorrect and inappropriate.

In fact, this motion is not designed to improve security on Parliament Hill. Rather, it is designed to remove control from our Speaker and our security services over security in this precinct and to give that power to the RCMP, which is controlled by the government.

However, there is no indication that the Hill will be more secure if the RCMP takes control of all security services on Parliament Hill.

We all know that the RCMP is an excellent police force made up of brave women and men who do not hesitate to risk their lives every day to protect Canadians. We can never thank them enough for their service. Our heart breaks over the tragic number of RCMP officers who have lost their lives serving Canadians, whether it is in Mayerthorpe, Alberta, or in Moncton. However, the fact that they do a good job across Canada does not make them the better choice to protect Parliament Hill.

I believe that if we allow our independent security services to manage security on the Hill with more resources, the thousands of individuals who use this place—members of Parliament, senators, journalists, employees and visitors—will be safer. The members of our security services understand how this place works. They respect the needs and traditions of our parliamentary institutions. They know our faces and our jobs. They always do their job with diligence and pride. They know how to keep us safe as we carry out our daily duties, all the while ensuring that this magnificent place remains a place where Canadians can meet, celebrate, mourn or express their opinions.

The RCMP is a huge organization known for frequently relocating and transferring its members and, admittedly, for the difficulties that it has had to face following allegations of sexual harassment. It is accountable to a government that, in turn, is increasingly known for doing everything in its power to stifle dissent and punish its political enemies.

I see here an excellent institutional reason for this House to reject the possibility of having the RCMP oversee Parliament's security services.

We are the legislature. We have a certain number of constitutional roles. One of them is to let the Governor General decide who has the confidence of the House.

In this system, there is a convention that determines which party leader will be called on to form the government. It is for that reason that there is a separation between the executive branch of government, the legislative branch of Parliament and the judicial branch.

This motion seeks to extend executive authority over Parliament by ensuring that the security agency that controls everything on Parliament Hill is the government's security agency—the RCMP. It is not the role of the legislature to serve the government. This House serves Canadians, not the government. The intent of this motion is to place security for this place under the control and direct authority of the government police service—the RCMP.

The role of the Speaker is to serve and protect all elected officials and the thousands of Canadians who come here, and not just to protect the Prime Minister and the government. I have no reason to believe that making the House of Commons security service a sub-section of the RCMP would improve security. I find it shocking that the Chief Government Whip is trying to adopt this measure now, when the process to integrate the House and the Senate security services is still under way.

I also find it shocking that the government whip is telling his MPs how to vote when, by voting that way, they will be giving up their own rights. If the government really wanted to talk about this in terms of legality and security, it would authorize a free vote. Based on the answer I got this morning, it seems that will be impossible.

That is why I am moving, seconded by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, an amendment to the motion that I believe would address my concerns:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after “That the House” and substituting the following:

“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; call on the Speaker, in coordination with his counterpart in the Senate, to prepare and execute, without delay, plans to fully integrate the work of all partners providing operational security throughout the Parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill , while respecting the privileges, immunities and powers of the respective Houses, including the ultimate authorities of the Speakers of the Senate and House of Commons over access and security of Parliament, and ensuring the continued employment of our existing and respected Parliamentary Security staff, whose exemplary work on October 22, 2014, very quickly ended a threat to the security of Parliament.”

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 6th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that this is really a sad day for democracy, for government in general and for the decisions we make here.

I also want to make the official opposition's position on enhancing the safety of the thousands of Canadians who spend time here every day perfectly clear. It is very clear to us that this is a priority. We need better integration, better training, better equipment and more resources dedicated to our safety. That is very clear.

The motion before us will not achieve that. This motion is nothing more than the government's attempt to take away the historic responsibility that the Speaker's office has under the Constitution to protect parliamentarians from the unilateral intrusion of government authority. I will not bore the House with the history of this practice, which dates back to the English civil war in the 17th century and which is the outcome of the evolution of our Constitution since 1867 even though that history can help us understand why our current system is the way it is.

My arguments will focus on two points: first, how this motion will definitely make the thousands of Canadians who visit this place every day less safe; and second, why it is unconstitutional and unacceptable in this institution to proceed in this manner within our constitutional democracy.

The fact that the government is using the power of its whip to try to take constitutional rights away from the Speaker and permanently hand control of security in this place over to its own security service is a direct attack on our traditions, our practices and our Constitution. This is an unprecedented attempt to control security in the only place where the government cannot control it: this Parliament. This once again demonstrates that this government, led by the Prime Minister, is obsessed with controlling everything.

I would like to quote a reference regarding the traditions and procedures of this House. In the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice by O'Brien and Bosc, the Speaker's role with regard to security is described on page 324.

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 6th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the government whip provided any explanation or rationale for why the Conservatives want to make this change. We support integration, but not the way they want to do it.

My colleague said that no positions will be cut and that people will keep their jobs, but in the same breath, he said that any staff reductions would be done through natural attrition. Why? Who will be replacing them? The RCMP? Nobody is answering those questions, and that has me very worried.

Before I give my presentation in a few minutes, I would like to ask a question.

Will they allow a free vote of all of their MPs?

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question and for his comment on the Liberal position on the manufacturing sector.

The manufacturing sector provides good jobs that are well paid, as well as good working conditions, but the past few years have been disastrous. After receiving subsidies from the Conservative Party, some plants closed down, which led to job losses, and left with the working tools.

With regard to the Liberal Party, my colleague is speaking to the right person, because I worked with the other parties for 20 years. In 1990, it was the Liberal Party that made job cuts and program cuts, took money out of employment insurance and the pension fund, and so on. I do not think it has changed much since then.

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question regarding the work that unions are doing to find solutions to regional economic problems.

There have been some meaningless meetings. As with everything else, this is how the Conservative government does things. What is more, the unions are in the midst of negotiations, and we know what the government thinks about negotiations.

From my personal experience as a former PSAC insider, and from what I am hearing about what is going on right now, I know that the unions are also trying to provide programs and services so that people are able to live a good life in the national capital region, especially since 4,000 jobs have been lost compared to other regions. That is very unfortunate.

If this government would listen, we could find solutions together and diversify the economy, whether it be in the national capital region or elsewhere. However, this government does not listen to us, so why would it listen to anyone else? Cuts should not be made just for the sake of making cuts. Cuts should be offset by other programs so that the regions are not affected.

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

I am very happy to make this presentation. We have spoken at length about the economy recently in this House. With the drop in the price of oil, Canadians are concerned about the economic health of our country, and with reason. The situation really shines a light on the Conservatives' mismanagement.

Because of a failure to invest in innovation and diversification, our economy is now vulnerable to shocks like this to natural resource prices. It is time for things to change, and Canadians should not have to wait until the next election for solutions.

In the NDP, we have a plan to repair the damage caused by the Conservatives. The motion moved by my colleague, the member for Parkdale—High Park, proposes three concrete steps the government can take today in order to boost our economy and support the middle class.

Our first suggestion is to stimulate job creation in small businesses by extending the accelerated capital cost allowance by two years. The second is to reduce the small business income tax rate from 11% to 10% immediately, and then to 9% when the economic situation permits. Finally, the third suggestion is to introduce an innovation tax credit to support investment in machinery, equipment and property in order to further innovation and increase productivity.

Clearly, our proposals focus on small and medium-sized enterprises, the real creators of employment in Canada, and they are very easy to implement. Between 2002 and 2012, in fact, 78% of new jobs in the private sector were created in SMEs. That is not surprising. Furthermore, 98% of all Canadian companies are SMEs: companies with fewer than 100 employees. They account for 40% of Canada’s GDP and employ nearly 8 million Canadians across this country.

However, the Conservative government does not seem to have gotten the message. It continues to pay no attention to SMEs. Since 2010, Canada has lost over 1,500 of them, mainly because of measures like the elimination of the small business hiring credit. Meanwhile, the Conservatives had ample resources to provide tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks to large companies. By constantly serving the interests of the Conservative Party and its friends, the government has lost sight of the interests of Canadians. They are out of touch with reality.

Personally, I have just completed a tour of the SMEs in my constituency. At ground level, it is very clear that the economic reality is difficult for SMEs. They constantly have to find new approaches and new ideas in order to remain profitable. I was truly impressed by the creativity and tenacity of the entrepreneurs I met with.

I am thinking, for example, of the Créagora initiative, a co-operative workspace in which a number of entrepreneurs work under the same roof. This space enables professionals to work independently, while sharing their resources and ideas. It is brilliant. I am also thinking of APICA, a group of business people and SMEs in the Aylmer sector who are constantly innovating and support numerous activities locally. Their contribution is not limited to creating jobs; they contribute their energy to our community. I congratulate them on what they are doing.

I should also say that one thing that came up often in my conversations with entrepreneurs is the fact that they often do not have the resources to offer full-time jobs to their employees. Part-time jobs can be useful, for example, by enabling students to balance working and going to school. However, people know as well as I do that you cannot live on a part-time job. As a result, in many cases, employees are just passing through such companies. It is truly difficult to build a succession in such circumstances.

Many entrepreneurs also tell me that government cuts have had a negative impact on the business climate in the Outaouais. That is not really a surprise. In the Outaouais, we know that the presence of the federal public service has a major impact on our economy.

That is one of the reasons why the NDP wants to make sure that at least 25% of investment in the national capital region takes place on the Quebec side of the river.

Since 2013, we have seen a clear deterioration in the job situation in our area. According to a study commissioned by the Gatineau chamber of commerce, the Outaouais lost 4,000 jobs in 2013, whereas the rest of Quebec posted an increase.

According to the study, job cuts in the federal public service are the direct cause of this poor performance. We can see that it is the entrepreneurs and families in my constituency who are paying the price for the ideological cuts made by this government. However, after shaking the economy of our area, the Conservatives have folded their arms and are refusing to support the entrepreneurs who are trying to diversify the economic structure of the Outaouais.

I was discussing this very subject this morning with Antoine Normand, who chairs the board of the Gatineau chamber of commerce. I must thank him for making himself available. It is always a pleasure to talk with him. He is always very open and helpful, which is very pleasant.

He was telling me that diversification should be a priority for sustainable economic development in the Outaouais. There is a huge potential for jobs in the Outaouais. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business ranks Gatineau among the most dynamic Canadian cities in terms of entrepreneurship.

We have the highest rate of bilingualism in Quebec and one of the highest graduation rates per capita. To put all this potential to work, it is time the three levels of government started working together to develop and fund a strategy to develop and attract businesses.

As Mr. Normand said, we have to support our businesses directly in terms of both research and development and facilitating imports. He proposed establishing a business mentoring program.

At present, there is not much mentoring of this kind in the Outaouais, for one thing because of the lack of leadership and resources from the federal government. He is nonetheless convinced that this kind of program could help businesses that are starting up to make it through their first five years of existence. Those first five years are a critical period, and we really have to help them get through that time to make sure they survive.

What the job creators in the Outaouais are asking for is not extravagant. They are not asking for business opportunities to be handed to them on a silver platter. These are people who are not afraid of hard work, and I can attest to that. In addition to meeting with SMEs, I come from a family that had a small business, and I saw my family work really very hard to help the employees and make sure that services were provided to the community and that at the end of the year they had saved some money and there was money to pay the taxes.

It is sad to see such extreme deterioration where we live in the Outaouais and see the government failing to meet the needs of small businesses to diversify the economy and make sure that someone can step in after the federal government’s budget cuts.

What these people really want is for the federal government to do its fair share to contribute to the economic development of our communities.

As I said, we in the NDP agree with them. We understand them and we support them. We believe that the government can take measures, starting today, to help SMEs do what they do best: create jobs. We have to support them in that effort.

I therefore urge my colleagues on both sides of the House to vote for this motion and start the work. This is a program that could be implemented very easily and very quickly.

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

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote and we will vote yes, with the addition of the member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Citizenship and Immigration, February 4th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, processing times for sponsorship applications made from inside Canada continue to increase. A woman from Hull—Aylmer submitted an application to sponsor her husband in September 2013.

We have been contacting the minister's office since April 2014. Every time we get the same response: “Next month, madam”. The problem is that the next month the processing time is pushed forward again.

What explanation does the minister have for the fact that it takes three times longer to process an inland application than an outland application?

[Labour, February 2nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday the Supreme Court recognized that the right to strike is protected under the Constitution. The Conservatives have shown a blatant disregard for the right to strike, even stripping it from federal workers with Bill C-4. That deal is nearly identical to the Saskatchewan law that the Supreme Court just ruled is not constitutional. Will the minister sit down with the unions and come up with an agreement, or will he waste tax dollars fighting to protect an unconstitutional law?

[Labour, February 2nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court just struck down a law that prevented Saskatchewan public servants from striking. The court reiterated that the right to strike is protected by the Constitution and that the government cannot arbitrarily expand the scope of what constitutes essential services.

Will the Conservatives acknowledge this decision and amend Bill C-4, which drastically restricts the right to strike and labour relations in the public service?