Debates of Feb. 16th, 2015

Motion that debate be not further adjourned

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with due respect to the government side on this issue and the debate we are having, I thought the debate was on closure, not on the bill.

When we have repeated closures in this place on a variety of issues, we do not get the opportunity to offer due diligence. This has happened 87 times in this place. This bill is probably the most significant bill I have seen in the nine years I have been in this place. When we give consideration to the implications, King Charles I of England lost his head for things very similar to this. When that sovereign tried to enter Parliament, ultimately that was the end.

The reality is that we are looking at a position where the source of control of our Parliament, which is supposed to rest with the Speaker, is going to a national police force that is accountable to the government. Therefore, from the standpoint of not debating it, it is the simple fact that we have not had the opportunity to give it proper study. If there is ever a bill that comes before this place that needs proper study, proper airing, anything that could be potentially contrary to our Constitution, the government says that it is not. I am saying that we have not had the opportunity to prove or disprove that.

The government is going way too far on an issue that is of great importance to the House and to Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are not debating a bill; we are debating a motion. This motion does not fetter the Speakers in any way, shape or form. The Speakers would have to negotiate or come up with a memorandum of understanding, a contractual agreement, some kind of agreement that deals with the details of how this is to be derived. That could all happen without this motion. However, this motion brings it to life and expedites it.

If anybody here wants to suggest that we do not have some sense of urgency about moving on, then they are out of step with where the Canadian public is. We have a responsibility in this place to protect much more than ourselves. It is all about the people we invite to this place. The Canadian public and all visitors who come to this place deserve a certain standard of care. That standard of care is something we need to improve. This integrated security exercise is all about that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will start off by expressing how grateful I am, and I know other members of the chamber are, for all those people from last fall who were involved in ensuring we had secure premises. Our accolades go to them and in no way should any of the debate reflect on any sort of poor performance in any fashion because they are all heroes, as far as I am concerned. I know many members of my caucus look at them in that fashion too.

We are debating the issue of a time allocation motion, which is very important. We have had all sorts of other very important issues where the government, as opposed to allowing for debate, have made the decision to limit debate in bringing forward time allocation.

My question is not necessarily for the minister, but more so for the government House leader. Here we are once again using time allocation to limit debate on yet another important issue. Why has the government been unable to negotiate in good faith with the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party to try to have more harmony in getting the legislative agenda done.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have had a long Parliament, since 2011. We have 12 weeks left. We still have a parliamentary legislative agenda. The government has a parliamentary legislative agenda. It has now been three and a half months since October 22. We do not have infinite time to move forward on measures that are required. We have been able to do some things in terms of integrating the security around here, and we have made some definite positive improvements.

I would like to join the member from Winnipeg in saying how much we value the people who have looked after the security in the parliamentary precinct in every way. There is no attempt to divide or to suggest that there has been any weakness or any criticism. This is all positive. They are all heroes. However, we do need to make some changes.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I see several members rising. If we stay very strictly to the one minute per question rule, we might be able to get them all in with the members' co-operation.

The hon. member for Northwest Territories.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, this is the parliamentarians' watch here right now on the future of this Parliament, so of course it is very serious what we are doing today, and the speed at which we are moving is not appropriate.

There has not been an official report that parliamentarians have had a chance to review over the incident that happened in October, so three and a half months have gone by without that. We have not seen any of the improvements that the Chief Government Whip has talked about to understand what those do to the situation in Parliament. Without that kind of technical information, for us to move ahead with any kind of change to the philosophy and structure of the House is really unfortunate.

Will the Chief Government Whip put forward the information that he does have? When will we see that information?

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

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.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I remind the government whip to address his comments to the Chair and not directly at other members.

The hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Chief Government Whip for his presentation. The problem I have with the motion in front of us is simply the House needs to debate it. It simply is not true that any committee that might have been sitting behind closed doors has had a fulsome opportunity to look at all the potential weaknesses and faults that the motion brings forward.

The House needs to have the opportunity to discuss this. The Chief Government Whip is not allowing that discussion to occur in the House.

We are talking about the House having precedence over government institutions. The purpose of this place is to have oversight over government institutions. We would now have a government institution imposed upon this place. We have turned this upside down.

The House needs to take its job seriously. I suggest the members from the other side take this job a lot more seriously than they are prepared to show today.

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

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.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sad to see how full of contradictions the other side of the House is when it comes to House of Commons security. I believe that on both sides of the House, we agree that Parliament's security officers are doing an outstanding job. They are probably the best trained people in the world, certainly in Canada, to keep us safe.

The problem now is that the government is imposing time allocation on us for a bill that should have never come from the government. This violates the right of the Speaker of the House. House of Commons security should not come under the government; it should come under the Speaker of the House. The government is overstepping the Speaker's powers.

I have so many things to say. I hope to have the opportunity to talk about the bill, because I feel very strongly about it.

I must say that I am extremely disappointed to see that the government is imposing time allocation on an issue as important as this. We do not even know whether this motion is constitutional. We do not know why it is coming from the government or why the Speaker's powers are being overstepped.

I would also like to know why the government does not trust our security officers, who work for us every day and put their lives on the line to protect us. Why?

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

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.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, it is important to note that this is a motion, not a bill. It has been repeatedly mentioned that it is some kind of bill that needs to be debated and sent to committee.

Second, when it was first introduced, I made it very clear, and all the opposition have said this as well, that it did not diminish our feeling of gratitude and pride for the security forces of this building who were heroic in ensuring that we were safe, not only on that day, but continuing right up to this day. This is about integrating a number of services.

My colleague from Yukon mentioned that with the Ontario Provincial Police there could possibly be at one point in time five law enforcement agencies or security services that have to be dealt with.

I wanted to make that clear and perhaps have the government whip speak to the issue that this does not diminish your capability, Mr. Speaker, but simply causes us to look at the necessary integration of security forces to work more efficiently together.

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

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.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I think about the events of October 22, two images come to my mind. I remember the shooting, which we have seen over and over again, probably too often, but I especially remember what happened the next day, which we probably have not seen often enough, when this Parliament spoke with one voice.

Now, just a few months later, we are again prepared to unite our voices in support of a security system, as long as the government accepts our amendment to its motion, which would unite all the voices in the House. Canadians expect Parliament—because that is what this is about—to speak with one voice on this issue. We expect the government to set partisanship aside on this issue.

Why not give ourselves the time and the means to do things properly?

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

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.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #330

Parliamentary Precinct Security

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.