Evidence of meeting #87 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Green
Bruce Hyer Green Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
It was not my intent to speak to it. If you want to have a vote on it, go ahead.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Do you want to speak to amendment PV-29, Mr. Hyer?
Green
Bruce Hyer Green Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
Yes, please.
With the Mounties poised to provide security services in the precinct, it's important to recognize that some conflicts may arise out of this new security arrangement. One of our particular concerns is the matter of the execution of search warrants in the parliamentary precinct, which has been a topic of much debate historically in this place. We recommend that it be stated clearly in this act that the Speaker be guided by precedent on this matter to ensure that it be the Speaker and/or Speakers who is or are solely responsible to protect the powers, privileges, rights, and immunities of Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
Joyce Bateman Conservative Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Mr. Chair, I'd like to indicate that the government does not support this proposed amendment.
With respect to paragraph (a) of the proposed amendment, removing “for greater certainty” may actually raise doubt as to whether the privileges would have remained intact had this provision not been included. This could have a negative interpretive effect on other statutory schemes that engage the workings of Parliament but that do not include a statement regarding the integrity of parliamentary privilege.
With respect to paragraph (b) of the amendment, this proposed amendment is beyond the scope of division 10 and beyond the scope of the mandate of the parliamentary protective service. The parliamentary protective service and the RCMP members that support it will only be responsible for the provision of physical security throughout the parliamentary precinct and grounds of Parliament Hill.
RCMP members embedded in the integrated security force will not engage in core policing activities such as the execution of warrants. This will continue to be handled by the police of the relevant jurisdiction, depending on the matter in accordance with established protocols.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, Ms. Bateman.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Chair, I would like a recorded vote.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
We'll have a recorded vote on clause 98.
Can we apply it to clause 99?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
We'll have a recorded vote on clause 98 and apply it to clause 99.
(Clauses 98 and 99 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(On clause 100—Persons who occupy a position)
We have amendment PV-30.
Mr. Hyer, please.
Green
Bruce Hyer Green Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
Mr. Chair, this amendment seeks to address some of the concerns raised by one of the witnesses from the House of Commons security services. That witness testified to the public safety committee that, while the motion passed in the House of Commons and the Senate guaranteed “continued employment”, this bill only guarantees that the day following the services' establishment, they will be transferred to the new service. It does not address the nature and length of their continued employment.
Given their long record of important service to this place, and in particular during the events of October 22, we hope that this amendment will reflect their concerns, and reassert and confirm this House's commitment to their continued employment.
Conservative
Conservative
Joyce Bateman Conservative Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Mr. Chair, the government does not support this proposed amendment for the following reasons. The suggested amendment would severely limit the job security of most members of the Senate protective service or the House of Commons protective service. Modifying the employment status of existing Senate protective service or House of Commons protective service staff to have them serve at the discretion of the Speakers would negate their current guarantee of tenure and would convert them to at-pleasure employees, which would be totally in violation of their collective agreements and contracts of employment.
This is contrary to what was contemplated by the motions, and may risk a violation of our security staff's constitutional right to freedom of association, so we will not support the amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Monsieur Caron, you want to speak to clause 100.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
I would like to discuss all the clauses, up to clause 152, including the two previous ones we have already voted on.
The argument is the same one we used when the government introduced its motion in the House, but what is happening with the security services is clearly unacceptable to us. We were not opposed to a consolidation of services, especially considering what happened on October 22. However, there are obviously some privileges associated with this House and the Senate. It was provided that the authority of the House of Commons and Senate security guards would always be subject to the authority of Parliament and its two Houses. Since the RCMP now reports directly to the government and no longer directly to Parliament, we feel that this is a significant departure from what used to be the responsibility of those of two Parliamentary services.
Therefore, we cannot accept this proposal. It would have been completely acceptable for the three bodies, including the RCMP, to work together, but under the authority of the House and the Senate.
This is not a superficial provision. It really changes the essence of what used to be separate bodies and responsibilities. Responsibilities are not trivial things. They stem from the essence and the role of Parliament, and from its role in terms of protection. Let's remember that the Parliament security officer bodies—of the Senate and the House of Commons—were created at the same time as the RCMP. However, their roles have been kept separate for constitutional reasons and because of Parliamentary privilege. That is why we cannot support the government's proposal.
Conservative
Conservative
Joyce Bateman Conservative Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Mr. Chair, the proposed amendment contemplates a scenario where there is a conflict between two different orders in council: one making an organization subject to PIPEDA, and another exempting an organization from the act because it is subject to a provincial privacy law.
This addition is unnecessary and contrary—
Conservative
Joyce Bateman Conservative Winnipeg South Centre, MB
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair.
I'm sorry. I have something in common with my colleague Mr. Hyer.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
We'll go to Monsieur Côté. Monsieur Caron said it very well, so I don't know if you need to....
Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I would just say this.
I have much respect for what my colleague, Mr. Caron, had to say.
I would simply like to add that it is especially shocking to see these legislative amendments being proposed in an omnibus bill, as they deserve a separate debate.
I don't know whether all my colleagues have read the report of the Ontario Provincial Police, but it is very troubling to see a fast-track process to amend this regime, while the report has raised more questions than it has provided answers regarding the RCMP's operational capacity in terms of coordination. We are blindly rushing into a new regime.
I would not add anything to what Mr. Caron said because it was spot on. We mustn't forget our privileges as parliamentarians, either. That's probably the most important aspect being denied.
Thank you very much.
Conservative
Conservative
Joyce Bateman Conservative Winnipeg South Centre, MB
May I have a response on division 10, clause 100?
The government does not support the proposed amendment.