Debates of Feb. 16th, 2015

Protection of Sage Grouse

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition addresses the issue of the amended recovery strategy for greater sage grouse in Canada. It petitions the House of Commons to rescind the strategy and replace it with one that is centred on landowners, land users, and all stakeholders, one that has good science to it that sets limits on research and monitoring and promotes the use of rural resources, existing infrastructure, and local employees to aid in the recovery of the species.

Middle East

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I present a petition on behalf of many people in my own riding and nearby ridings. These people are calling on the Government of Canada to do more in the Middle East. They are calling on the government to provide emergency care and reconstruction assistance and to make it easier for refugees to come to Canada.

Impaired Driving

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition that sadly informs the House that 22-year-old Kassandra Kaulius was tragically killed by a drunk driver who chose to drive while impaired. Kassandra's family was devastated.

Families for Justice is a group of Canadians who have also lost loved ones to impaired drivers. They believe that Canada's impaired driving laws are much too lenient. They want the crime to be called what it is: vehicular homicide. It is the number one cause of criminal death in Canada. Over 1,200 Canadians are killed every year by drunk drivers.

Families for Justice is also calling for mandatory sentencing for vehicular homicide and for this Parliament to support Bill C-652, Kassandra's law.

The Environment

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions today.

The first petition deals with a local issue that is federally regulated within my riding. It is a call from petitioners to ensure that the Saanich Inlet be declared as a designated zone where the discharge of raw sewage is not allowed. This is primarily a problem caused by recreational boaters, and it is an enclosed area. The petitioners hope for action on this issue.

Citizenship

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I also present a petition from residents throughout the Vancouver and Surrey area dealing with lost Canadians. These petitioners call on the government to recognize the citizenship of Canadian war dead who died before 1947 and ask that they be recognized as Canadian citizens who died in the service of their country.

Gros-Cacouna Oil Terminal

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the fall 2014 session, the NDP moved a motion in the House calling for parliamentarians to reject the Port of Cacouna oil terminal project. A petition was circulated in that regard, stating that the project is not at all in keeping with the principles of sustainable development.

Therefore, I have a few hundred signatures to add to the tens of thousands of names already on the petition, which have been made public by a great many organizations across Quebec. This project is not socially acceptable.

I am pleased to present the views of many Quebeckers.

CBC/Radio-Canada

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today signed by hundreds of my constituents regarding CBC/Radio-Canada. Budget cuts to CBC/Radio-Canada are undermining the strength of our public broadcaster. A self-respecting democracy needs a public broadcaster that is independent from the government, so that it can conduct nuanced analyses of political, economic and social issues in the country.

The petitioners are calling on the government to stop making cuts and to provide adequate funding to ensure that all regions across the country receive quality service.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from my constituents to the Government of Canada.

CBC Radio 2 is Canada's second-largest radio network. Radio 2 cannot be received in North Bay but is broadcast to other major urban centres all across Canada, including Sudbury and Huntsville. The petitioners ask the Government of Canada to extend CBC radio service coverage to the North Bay area.

Foreign Investment

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that I am still receiving petitions from across Canada regarding the Canada-China FIPA. They are decrying it, and asking the government not to make it happen.

As we know, cabinet has already approved it, but I am still receiving petitions asking us not to do this silly thing.

CBC/Radio-Canada

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to present a list of 1,800 additional names of people who are very concerned about the future of CBC/Radio-Canada and who are calling for stable, predictable multi-year funding.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motion that debate be not further adjourned

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in relation to consideration of Government Business No. 14, I move:

That the debate be not further adjourned.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will be a 30-minute question period. I would ask members to keep their questions to around a minute, and responses to a similar length.

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are now looking at the 87th time, nearly 100 times, that the government has imposed closure or time allocation. However, on this particular motion, we certainly understand why.

As the government surprised us with this motion a week and a half ago, not giving due consideration, not even allowing members of caucus to actually have a discussion prior to the motion being dumped in the House, we found out three things.

First of all, and this is extremely important, the heroes of October 22 are the Senate and House of Commons security guards who performed so bravely, and with such incredible courage, on the day when we had the incident of the man running into the House of Commons. At that time, as members know, the whole country was willing to call them heroes. What the Conservative government is doing with Motion No. 14 is actually demoting them, if members can believe that. They would be demoted for their bravery and courage.

The second thing that has come out in the brief debate of only a few hours that we have had on this issue is that the RCMP is far from ready to take over Hill security. It came out in the The Globe and Mail, which reported that the RCMP commissioner said that there is still so much work to do.

Third, of course, which is extremely important, comes from the Commons Protective Service, the women and men in uniform who protect us every day and have showed such courage and bravery, who said that the government's position is as follows:

an indefensible and dangerous interference of government into the independence of the legislative function, as well as a solid breach into one of the foundational pillars of our democratic system: the principle of separation of powers.

Is the real reason that the government is doing this because as the facts come out the public is opposed to this initiative that comes from the Prime Minister's Office?

[John Duncan, Conservative, Minister of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, we are once again watching the politics of division coming from the House leader of the official opposition.

This is a situation where we would have an integrated security unit, which would consist of both parliamentary security personnel and the RCMP. This is something that was called for as long ago as the Auditor General's report of 2009. It has been thoroughly discussed many times. The only reason we have not had it in place is because we did not have a catalytic moment. We certainly had a catalytic moment on October 22, 2014.

The Auditor General's report from June of 2012 expected this integrated security unit to be in place by 2015. It is 2015. It is long overdue.

The motion calls for the coordination of the new responsibilities and roles to be through the Speakers' offices. The Speakers are the ones who would ensure that the parliamentary separation of powers and so on would be maintained. It is not the RCMP who would be in charge. It will be the Speakers and Parliament.

With that, I think I have answered the questions more than once. The same questions keep coming up, but this is an absolutely essential thing to do.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I was on that side of the House as chief government whip and deputy House leader, we had requests from the official opposition and the third party not to introduce a motion to put time allocation on a debate until the respective caucuses had a chance to discuss the matter in their caucus meetings.

This came up on the last Friday that the House sat, and today we are asked to end the debate without the caucuses having had a chance to discuss this very important matter. My question for the chief government whip is, why would he not respect what they asked for when we were on the government side, to allow the different caucuses to have a chance to debate these matters within their own caucuses?

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the whips and the House leaders have been involved in discussions regarding the motion. The motion is a common sense motion that builds in everything needed to be consistent with the recommendations from the Auditor General's report, and other considerations, such as separation of powers.

Therefore, regarding the need for further consultation, based on the fact that we already debated it in the House prior to the one-week recess we just had, it has given everyone ample opportunity to weigh in on the matter, and that it is well in hand.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Chief Government Whip himself admitted that the deadline set out in the Auditor General's report was not respected.

It is rather strange to see the government attempt to limit debate on this topic. If the government had been even remotely thorough, we could have previously held a full debate on this coordination. We could have had a discussion on how the various security forces and the RCMP could be coordinated and have a unified command.

How can the whip claim, two years after the Auditor General's deadline, that we need to cut off debate on this?

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the whole question of an integrated security force was recommended, and the recommended time, not a deadline, to have it in place, was 2015.

There has been no shortage of discussions between the security advisory committees on the House of Commons side and from the Senate side. We have had integration with the House of Commons and Senate security forces, which has been ongoing for some time now. We are moving to the next step.

I would remind the member that this all happened within 24 hours when they were presented with a clear and present danger in Australia. We need to exercise some sense of urgency about moving forward with an absolutely essential measure.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to disagree with the hon. Chief Government Whip.

This House was presented with this motion on the last day that we were in session before the constituency break week. There have been no witnesses before this House. In an emergency, it is possible for the government to turn the House into a committee of the whole and bring forward security witnesses.

I am not the least bit comfortable with this motion. I want to know what our former sergeant-at-arms, Kevin Vickers, was saying about it at the time he was appointed away from Canada, in Ireland, and who has not participated in this debate.

The House of Commons security force is equipped, well trained, and has the constitutional and professional track record to be the unified force that takes over control of Parliament Hill. What is being proposed is rushed, potentially unconstitutional, and should not be done under the guise that we have had lots of discussions. We have not. We have not had one single security expert as a witness in this place where we are being asked to vote on something with closure on debate and a completely inadequate sham of a process.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, well, I am not surprised that leader of the Green Party is not happy. However, I would like to say from the get-go that her attempt to continue to put words in the mouth of our former sergeant-at-arms is absolutely and totally inappropriate. It is political theatre and political opportunism on her part.

Second, this is not a rushed exercise. There have been discussions going on for a very long time.

Finally, this is not unconstitutional. The Speaker, in many ways, is the keeper of that very point. I am confident, as are others who have looked at this question, that the motion is absolutely consistent with our constitutional separation.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government needs to understand that there is a world of difference between the government and Parliament.

We are talking about the security of Parliament, not the security that the government is responsible for. The fact that it would attempt to ram this through without agreement is unacceptable.

I think all of us here accept that we have to act with some urgency. This is not something that can sit on the back burner and have a review of it happen whenever it happens.

I want to add my voice to support the members for Ottawa—Vanier, and Saanich—Gulf Islands. The member for Ottawa—Vanier asked, at the very least, whether we could not stop for a moment to see if we cannot reach an agreement whereby all the members here are comfortable going forward.

This is not a matter of whether we should do something, whether we should combine the two services in terms of security, the other place and here. We all agree with that. That is the easy part. The hard part is who is in control. In this Parliament, and in all parliaments, the separation of government from parliament is superior. We need to ensure that no matter how this is structured that the government at the end of the day does not call the shots, pardon the pun, on what happens vis-à-vis security in Parliament. That is the problem with the government rushing it through.

There is ample time for the government to consult with all members in all caucuses, to ensure that for once something that they say is the right thing, we can actually say is the right thing. The government saying it is not good enough, and it does not address the important parliamentary principles that are stake. There is a separation between the government and the Parliament, and this motion crosses every line. It is unacceptable and fixable, if the government, for once, would just be reasonable and allow others to have their say.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we do have an integrated security unit and force in the mother Parliament in London, as well as in Australia. They were responding to events, modernizing and doing what is necessary when there is recognition that it could be a place that is targeted. We have a living example of that now. We did not have that in June of 2012.

In the latter part of the motion, it very clearly states:

—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.

We are all aware of the concerns that have been expressed on this subject from all parties and various people, such as the experts who have looked at security on Parliament Hill. This motion respects all of those principles.