Debates of Feb. 16th, 2015

Consideration Resumed of Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for his question.

He is absolutely correct. Rights and obligations, what we sometimes call parliamentary privilege, exist for one clear reason: to prevent the executive from abusing its powers. The judiciary controls the executive, but it acts after the fact.

Basically, in Parliament, when we want to solve problems before they appear, we have to propose amendments and keep an eye on what the executive is doing. That is why I believe the motion before us presents a fundamental problem. First of all, it was moved by the government and this is an excellent example of an abuse of power on the part of the executive, which is imposing its solution on the legislative branch.

Parliamentarians have an obligation to defend their rights, but not because they like the power. Rather, it is because Parliament's reason for being is to control the executive. Otherwise, the executive would behave as it did long ago. It would do as it pleases and members would not speak out and would not be willing to take their obligations seriously.

Ultimately, we would end up with an executive over which we had almost no control. More and more we are trying to control the executive in Canada using the judicial system. However, it would be much more effective and less expensive if that were done here in the House.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to debate the motion before us and the amendments that have been made to it.

Of course, the NDP is not opposed to the idea of an integrated security force operating in the parliamentary precinct. That is an idea that most of us have a good feeling about and think would improve the general security of the place. However, the problem is what has happened here to start with and then looking at the details of the motion.

To start with, when we have an opportunity for parliamentarians to make the rules for Parliament, there should be a process that engages parliamentarians and not a process that comes from the Prime Minister's Office. That is not appropriate for dealing with the rules that govern us as parliamentarians. We all understand that, but the Conservatives seem to be willing to go along with the idea that a party of one gets to make the choices in this House of Commons for all of us.

What we have before us is a motion that calls on the Speaker to “invite without delay, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police...”

Therefore, once the motion is passed, the Speaker has his orders. He is going to invite, without delay, without discussion, the RCMP to lead operational security. That is the essence of what is happening here. Everything else around it is on qualifications that may or may not come into play. However, that is what will happen from this motion, which is what we are here for today.

We talk about the privilege of the House and the continued employment of our existing parliamentary security staff, but those are things that can or may be put into place, or they may continue in one way or another. However, it is that the RCMP would take over and lead operational security for this parliamentary precinct. That is what is going to happen.

How do we feel about the actions of the security team in October, which is what has driven the party of one, the Prime Minister, to put forward this motion?

We all saw what happened. We all have our ideas about what went wrong or right on that day. We can look back and ask ourselves if the people in our security service within this House, many whom have worked here for many years and recognize every one of us, were the most important element in what happened on that day. I think we can say yes. We saw what happened outside of the grounds.

We could say that there are technical issues outside of the grounds. Why do we not have electronic locks on the main doors in this place? Why do we not have secondary barriers on the roads leading up to this place? What are we doing about the people on two-wheeled vehicles who roar up the Hill? Nothing. We do have some technical issues on the grounds around Parliament that we need to deal with. We obviously have problems with access to the buildings when someone can walk in without anyone stopping them.

There are issues that need to be dealt with, but they are not issues that need to change the way that Parliament is run and the way parliamentarians take care of themselves. These are technical issues. They are issues that should be worked on by security experts who can put them in place, who can make sure that procedures outside the grounds and inside the House are adequate for our protection and respect the nature of Parliament. We do not need to change the relationship to do that.

My concern about the grounds goes back to an incident in September 2011, when members of the RCMP, in response to the Keystone pipeline protest, put up massive barricades. They shut down the main stairs leading up to the middle of the parliamentary grounds. They positioned people on tops of buildings. There was a crowd of 1,000 people, and they were very concerned about controlling it.

As a member of Parliament, I wanted to access the stairs. I told the RCMP that I wanted to stand on the stairs and talk to people in the crowd. The officers told me I could not do that. When I asked the officers under what authority were they doing this, they said the authority was in a book in the House of Commons. I told them to get the book. When they opened it, they apologized and told me to stand where I wished.

Those RCMP officers did not understand the relationship of parliamentarians to Parliament. Some of them are here for a year or two; some are here maybe a bit longer. They are not like our security staff. They do not understand the nature of Parliament and the parliamentarians who work here and represent Canadians within this building.

We do not want to see that change. We do not want to see the relationship we have with this building change over technical issues that should be fixed and can be fixed.

When I was transport critic in the last Parliament, I spent time on aviation security. It was clear that once security rules are put in place, they stay in place, whether they become rather insignificant and meaningless later on.

We went through a process in transport committee and we heard from many witnesses. When we begin locking the cockpit door of an airplane so that no one can enter it, it changes the nature of what can go into the cabin. An individual cannot open a properly locked cockpit door with a pair of scissors. Threatening someone in the cabin is then like threatening somebody anywhere else. Threats were made, so rules were finally changed.

The Israelis laugh at some of the things that we do here. They have the best security system in the world, but we get into a fixed position about what we think security is and we are then not adaptable to the changes that can take place.

We do need to adapt, but we cannot throw out the baby with the bath water. We cannot make this Parliament less than it is. This is our watch. We are standing this watch. This is the watch that all of us in this Parliament represent at this time. What we do here to change the rules for how our Parliament behaves is important. It cannot be done simply at the whim of the party of one. The party of one does not have the right to do that to us in this Parliament. We all know what the party of one means here, and no one could deny that.

The differences between the RCMP and the security people in the House are really quite apparent. The security people here look on this as their career. They learn to work with us. They know each other and all of us personally. They understand how this place works when we are here and when we are somewhere else.

What is the likelihood of the RCMP understanding that? RCMP officers have a couple of years on the Hill and then move on. Some rookies from Regina might be brought in and put to work on the Hill. What kind of guarantee is that of the total understanding of the relationship of parliamentarians to Parliament, of respect for the people who work in here, of understanding our job and our authority within the House? There is no guarantee.

This is a dangerous place to go. We do not need to go there. We should go back and put this in front of a group of parliamentarians. We should come together and make an agreement among ourselves. We are not far away. Two amendments have been made to the government's motion, one from the opposition and one from the third party. We are not far apart. Let us bring them together. Let us put this together in a good fashion.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Northwest Territories spoke about how important it was that the security services here understand the nature of the business that we do and at times know us personally. In fact, in my intervention I spoke to how remarkable it is that they know each one of us and how important the client service delivery they are able to provide us is to security systems.

However, the member for Northwest Territories implied that it was an impossibility for the RCMP to learn that. I am new to this place. I have been here four years now. I did not know the rules and procedures, but as time went by I learned them. There are training mechanisms in place, and those things are quite possible.

I have a direct question for the member outside of that. Does he recognize that the parliamentary precinct encompasses areas that are in different security zones, such as inside this place, in other buildings on the Hill, on the front property, and in Ottawa proper? We travel on green buses between different buildings, as an example. How does he propose we integrate a security system without the lead of the RCMP? It is the only organization right now that has authority in each one of those places as well as on the streets going toward the Valour Building or the Victoria Building or the Wellington Building. It controls all of the access to the front lawns, both in and out, and not just for the House of Commons.

I wonder if the member for Northwest Territories could highlight exactly how we would integrate that security with any lead other than the RCMP, given those realities of jurisdiction and authority on those properties outside of this physical building.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of ideas. I think that a system of electronic locks on the doors that both the RCMP and the security service have the ability to lock from a distance would be a good idea.

When I look at the bollards that were installed, I think of how many terrorists ride scooters. They could simply scooter their way through there and not be stopped by that very expensive system that was put in.

There are things we should do, technical things that need to be accomplished on the Hill to provide safety. I do not have a problem with that. The Speaker and the technical security experts should come together to understand how to make this place safer. I do not think we have done a very good job of it yet. I think we can do a much better job.

However, what I do not want to change is the relationship of parliamentarians with their own security system. It is fine to change the building or the layout, but the most important thing that we do in this House is represent people as the authority of Canadians. We cannot give that up.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a former police officer. I have observed the behaviour of the House security guards and the RCMP on the outside for six and a half years, and I have a practical question.

As usual, the hon. member for the Northwest Territories was philosophically elegant and eloquent today. However, I have a practical question for him, which is this. Why is it when the security guards, who he has pointed out do a great job, were effective last October 22, whereas the problem occurred outside with the Mounties? Why would we be handing it over to the guys who screwed up instead of handing it over to the guys who do a good job and always have?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I would not characterize anything that happened as the fault of any individual. I think the system was at fault. Clearly, there are technical issues with respect to the grounds around here that need to be fixed. They were not fixed by the security ideas the last group came up with, so we need to have another look at that.

Why would we give the lead to the RCMP? There is some concern that it would be a movement away from the legislature into the executive, and that needs to be allayed by the use of very precise wording. That wording is not there right now. I have read the motion, and it is not in there.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, this is an important debate, undeniably for Parliament and also for Canadians, for understanding the issues around security on the Hill. Surely October 22 shocked parliamentarians and all the staff and guards and police who were here, and it really shook Canadians in many ways to see that type of violence visited on one of the most important democratic institutions that our country has.

In this debate and in the wording of the motion there is much to examine. We have heard some very thoughtful comments and some very pressing concerns that have to be met, not the least of which are the concerns of the guards here.

I hope in the time I have remaining to put to rest some of the fears, because I do fear that, for whatever reason, there has been an attempt to leave the impression that the guards here on the Hill had somehow failed in their duty or had not done proper security and that they will be cast aside and would somehow be left in the lurch as a result of the changes that are foreseen.

I think it goes without saying that the precinct of Parliament and the buildings that make up that precinct should not have four separate, or arguably five, separate security forces working within a few hundred metres of the seat of government.

It has been stated a number of times, but it bears repeating, that these silos that have evolved naturally and that occur when we have separate security forces cause a breakdown in efficiencies and communications when it comes to providing proper security, so there is a very practical side to what we are attempting to do.

Mr. Speaker, you have been here a while as well. This discussion has certainly been going on as long as I can remember. When I came here in 1997, the discussion was happening then, but it goes back further than that. It has been the subject of some quite involved and thoughtful studies that relate to maintaining parliamentary privilege while maintaining services and security for current parliamentarians. It comes down to a very important crux of the issue, and that is the ability to integrate security in the most efficient way to protect those within this precinct.

Without going back to October 22 and re-examining the particular issues of that day, it stands to reason that our national police force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, would be seized of this issue and would be given the overall responsibility. When one considers their plugged-in nature with CSIS for intelligence gathering and with CSEC in terms of military intelligence, their national reach and experience in history and connectivity to this place all lend themselves to being the body that would provide the greatest security.

This is why we have introduced the measure that has been the subject of this debate. It is an idea that I would submit is long overdue. It is not something that was simply brought about in the aftermath of October 22. In fact, in 2012 the Auditor General recommended moving towards an integrated security force. The Auditor General, in the report on the parliamentary precinct, also recommended a unified security force, and the integrated security model announced today and discussed here is all about acting on that recommendation, which states, “It is necessary to balance the desired level of access with sufficient security to ensure that risks are mitigated.”

Therefore, there was much work done before October 22, but I would submit that a great deal has happened since.

I said at the outset I wanted to mention and dwell for some time on the issue around the impact on the staff. Some have suggested that the RCMP will somehow exclude the courageous and commendable work that was done by security forces here, that they would somehow be cast aside.

The fact of the matter is that the RCMP, with their resources and their experience, are well versed at working with other security forces. That has been the evolution of our national police force. They have had, by necessity, to work with municipal police, with provincial police, and, as I mentioned, with other security agencies, and that has been to our country's benefit.

We saw a recent example, if I might mention what happened in the city of Halifax just a few short days ago. The RCMP worked closely with Halifax metro and an international police force in the United States to thwart what would have been a disastrous Valentine's Day massacre in the city of Halifax. I salute the incredible work that was done, much of which came about because of intelligence gathering and a humane tip offered through Crime Stoppers.

To come back to the point, the confidence we feel in the House of Commons protective services, the men and women who have guarded these premises for over 150 years and have done so with extraordinary professionalism, courtesy, and personal commitment, is not the essence of this debate. There is no denying that what happened on October 22, 2014 was perhaps the greatest example of their professionalism and courage.

I could not stand here without mentioning the sergeant-at-arms. Mr. Vickers, now our ambassador to Ireland, is a true Canadian hero, but there were many heroes that day, in uniform and working here on the Hill.

To be clear, this is an endorsement of a continuation of inclusion for the betterment of security here in the precinct. It is Canada's national police force that should lead that effort.

We are also committed to providing Canadians with continued access to the House of Commons. This has been another legitimate concern. Canadians want to be able to access this place. This an important home of democracy, and reasonable security measures must be balanced against that concern. Appropriate security measures will be implemented by this new integrated security unit for the parliamentary precinct and will be done with a great deal of input, including, most importantly, from those who have been doing this job for many years and decades.

Ensuring the safety of our visitors, our staff, our elected officials, including those in the Senate, and all those who work here in the precinct is following an international example. It is following what has happened in other parliaments. I am sure that this has been mentioned. In the U.K. and Australia, there has been a natural evolution to recognize the modern security threats and to recognize the physical infrastructure that has improved, as was mentioned by members here tonight.

It is important to emphasize that the Westminster parliament, the mother parliament of all, took steps in this direction some time ago. Canada is lagging in this regard, and the time is here. It and other parliaments have clearly demonstrated that security forces are much stronger and much more efficient when integrated while at the same time balancing the privileges of Parliament.

To that extent, I must also mention that this would not be done under the sole authority of the RCMP. Some have mentioned that it would therefore be the government controlling security. However, this would be done through the Speakers' offices. The Speakers of the House and the Senate would very much have a hand in how this integrated security force would operate.

I want to stress that the rights and privileges of Parliament through the Chair, the important office of the Speaker, would remain unchanged. This would include the privilege of the House and the Senate to control their own precincts and the right of members to come and go unimpeded.

This motion, should it pass and be implemented, is a natural progression in the development of a memorandum of understanding to govern the next steps. This is not something that would be drafted on the back of a napkin. There is a great deal of work already in place that would continue in a transparent and inclusive way.

The security imperatives are such that it is the government's objective, and it should be all members' objective, to see that this transition and partnership with security partners occurs as soon as possible. Following the passage of a parliamentary motion in both Houses, the government would work with the Speakers on the transition planning.

This again does not suggest that we are beginning this process anew. This is something that has been happening now for some time. It would build on those existing efforts.

Maintaining one force inside the Parliament buildings and one force outside the Parliament buildings simply does not make sense in this current threat environment. That is why we are in full support of integration throughout the precinct under the operational leadership of the RCMP.

The operational command would see an RCMP officer commanding the integrated security unit, but the selection process would be carried out in accordance with the RCMP Act, which is an act that includes all the elements of the existing RCMP. This is something that would be done in consultation with both Houses and with both Speakers.

I know the time is coming to an end, but I want to make the point, again, abundantly clear. This government, and I believe I am safe in speaking for all members here, has not lost faith for a moment in the security that has been provided by the men and women of the parliamentary security force. They are our best friends. They are people who we have come to know and respect and to care for deeply because of the way they have treated all members. I, for one, after time here on the Hill, consider some of the members of this force to be good friends, to be people who I have come to know, and I know their families. It is very important that they understand that we deeply value their service to this precinct but also to this country.

Their bravery that was on display on October 22 was nothing short of extraordinary. I am so glad that we had the opportunity to express that to them personally here on the floor of the House of Commons that day. All members demonstrated an incredible outpouring of personal affection, respect, and appreciation for all that they did on October 22 and for all they have done throughout their entire time here on Parliament Hill.

For those reasons, I would encourage all members in this House to support this motion, as it ends some of the duplication, overlap, and inconsistencies that can be exploited and can cause gaps in our security. No one wants to see security breached, as it was on that day. There has been ample time now to examine in detail what occurred.

More importantly, it is time to move forward in a thoughtful way that includes everyone, that puts security first, and that balances the rights of our parliamentary precinct and Canadians.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It being 8:02 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of Motion No. 14 under government orders.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #331

Parliamentary Precinct Security

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the amendment to the amendment defeated.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the amendment 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:

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #332

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion defeated.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.