Debates of Feb. 6th, 2015

Parliamentary Precinct Security

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

moved:

Motion No. 14

That this House, following the terrorist attack of October 22, 2014, 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; 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.

Mr. Speaker, I am a proud Canadian. I have always been a proud Canadian. My family are all proud Canadians, and everyone in the chamber and watching this debate is a proud Canadian. This is a good starting place.

Canada is a true symbol of democracy in the world today. We live in the best country in the world, and one thing that is valued greatly is that we are a safe country. That is the first duty of the federal government to maintain and enhance.

This government has become a global leader in upholding democratic values and protecting human rights. Under the leadership of our Prime Minister, Canada has gained prominence for our moral clarity in the universal fight against terror. Through its spirited initiatives, Canada's influence on the international stage has grown and matured immensely.

Parliament Hill is the most important symbol of Canadian democracy. We have an obligation to protect this symbolic institution and to ensure the safety of visitors, employees, and elected officials. It is imperative for security within Parliament Hill to be integrated and enhanced.

We particularly owe a standard of care to Canadian visitors and international visitors to Parliament Hill. Public access must be maintained within a protective framework. Canadians cannot but be influenced by international events, and we then witnessed the event of October 20, with the murder of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, followed by the events of October 22 at the National War Memorial, with the killing of Corporal Nathan Cirillo and the subsequent attack on Parliament.

More recently, the terrorist attack at Charlie Hebdo headquarters in Paris has strongly reaffirmed our concerns that terrorism knows no boundaries and that in order to maintain our freedoms we must secure ourselves in the optimum way.

The Auditor General's report, in 2012, indicated the need for an integrated parliamentary security force. While we believe that the ongoing unification of the House of Commons and Senate security services is a good first step, a fully integrated security force is also required.

On October 22, there were four distinct police security services, each with its own jurisdiction between the Parliament buildings and the National War Memorial. These were the House of Commons Security Services, the Senate Protective Service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the Ottawa Police Service. It is overdue that Parliament has an integrated security force to ensure seamless response to threats.

Today's motion is an administrative starting point to create, under the operational command of the RCMP, a fully integrated parliamentary security force which will provide for one chain of command and one point of accountability. The RCMP has a national presence that has access to rapid response training, security assessments, and intelligence, which are all essential in meeting today's evolving threats.

Today's motion calls upon the Speakers of the House and Senate to invite the RCMP to lead this operational security. I have confidence that the Speakers will ensure that this unified force will not alter or negatively impact the existing immunities and essential parliamentary privileges of members of Parliament. This enhanced security model will provide protection for visitors and parliamentarians, balanced with the goal of ensuring reasonable access to our Parliament for all Canadians.

The Auditor General identified that it is necessary to balance the desired level of access with sufficient security to ensure that risks are mitigated. The security measures implemented by the new integrated security unit for the parliamentary precinct will have policy oversight from parliamentary authorities.

It is the government's objective to advance the transition with all security stakeholders as soon as possible. A transition committee coordinated by the Speakers of both Houses will work with senior officials on a transition plan.

The House of Commons security force is a backbone of Parliament Hill. Their individual efforts and courage on October 22, 2014 are admired and respected to the highest degree, and we thank them.

[An hon. member]

That is not a way to thank them, though.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious subject, and I do not appreciate being heckled.

[An hon. member]

It is not heckling.

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

Mr. Speaker, I call that heckling at a time like this.

The integration of House of Commons and Senate parliamentary security is a necessary element, which would build upon a strong tradition of ensuring that protection and security are carried out effectively and efficiently in the face of evolving threats.

All decisions related to the integrated security force would ensure continuous employment for current parliamentary security staff and be consistent with the existing collective agreements. Security staff serve a variety of important functions, which we expect will continue under the integrated security force. If there are any staff reductions that result, they would be done through natural attrition.

While there is a proud tradition and a proud culture in this institution and in our protective services, recent events can only lead us to conclude that an integrated security force is essential in our buildings and on the grounds.

Canadians have much to celebrate, including the upcoming 150th anniversary as a Confederation. We know we are able to compete at the highest level in every field of human endeavour, so it is only right that we apply ourselves to implementing best practices to achieve a seamless and integrated security in this place.

We owe it to the family who is visiting from France. We owe it to the mother and child who are visiting from Vancouver. We owe it to our respected diplomatic guests who graciously attend our official events. We owe it to our esteemed security staff members who require a solid framework so they can do what they do best. We owe it to our parliamentary staff members. We also owe it to our elected officials who have taken an oath to protect the public interest.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

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?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a government-inspired initiative and an important measure that we wish to put into place. The transition plan will contain the details of how this would be achieved. The Speakers will be a very important part of that transition planning. They will lead that exercise.

Obviously, I have fully answered the question that has been asked of me. It is a government initiative and the government members will be supporting this initiative.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like a clear answer to this because I am very concerned by this move. I wonder if the hon. member opposite would tell me if he is aware of the advice received from our former sergeant-at-arms, Kevin Vickers, on the subject of removing independent security with its allegiance to Parliament and not to government?

This is both a constitutional question and a security question. I believe that Kevin Vickers would not stand for this.

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been ongoing discussions. This motion did not derive out of thin air. There have been a lot of discussions up until now to get to where we are. I addressed the constitutional question in my speech. The question of the immunity and privileges of members of Parliament will remain unaltered.

This is a thoughtful exercise and one that follows a model that has already largely been adopted in Australia and the U.K., based on real threat assessments that they felt they needed to respond to. This is something that we cannot continue to believe will not be the situation here.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the former sergeant-at-arms, Kevin Vickers, would never have stood for this. This does not come from the Speaker. According to The Globe and Mail, sources have said that this decision is being driven by the Prime Minister. This is a major override of the legislative principle of the separation of power that has existed since the beginning of Confederation.

We have had a statement as well from the president of the association that represents our brave security guards. The message stated that a possibility of this move by the government would be, “in the view of the association, 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”.

This came from our brave security guards themselves, who laid their lives on the line on October 22. The current government is giving them a slap in the face and is moving to demote them, after they showed such bravery and courage on October 22.

I would like the government whip to confirm that this comes from the Prime Minister's Office. Will he confirm it? Also, will he admit that this is a major interference in the separation of powers under which this Confederation has existed since 1867?

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

Mr. Speaker, when people talk about separation of powers, they often reference the mother Parliament in the U.K. The U.K. has a unified security force, as do some other very important Commonwealth partners. Australia has a unified security force, which was put in place in 24 hours when officials realized that there was a real and present significant threat, and they worried about the details later.

I always have a difficult response when members of the opposition want to put words in the mouths of people who are not able to speak. Kevin Vickers was a non-partisan friend to all as the sergeant-at-arms in this place. We all respect him immensely. Many of us consider him a friend. I refuse to be baited by the opposition members, who wish to put words in his mouth that I know he would not say.

Finally, the politics being played here that have nothing to do with improving the security of this place are not contributing to this debate, and I hope the opposition members will back off their petty politics.

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

Mr. Speaker, all of us lived through the October incident. All of us watched the video afterward, because many of us were locked in rooms and felt that our lives were threatened and heard the gunfire that we thought was actually from multiple shooters coming after us. We found out that it was the brave people of both our own security force and the RCMP.

It is repugnant that the opposition members would imply that to try to enhance and make a force more effective by integrating it would in any way, shape, or form disparage those brave people who protected us on that day. I just want the chief government whip to confirm that as being exactly the case.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for saying so eloquently what I should have said in response to the previous question.

We thank our security forces. The House of Commons force was very dutiful and did all the right things on October 22. We are not saying that one is better than the other. We are saying that what we need is seamless, integrated security. It is that simple. It has to be led by one entity. The entity best placed to do that is the entity with a national presence and with connections to rapid response training on a national level and to intelligence sources, and so on. That is why we are where we are.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think what is being lost by the whip is something he actually said in his own speech, which is that we are the ones to be in charge of preserving the freedoms we have. The problem is that this process is devoid of the very words he speaks. We should be looking at this with sober eyes and not just ramming through a motion. We should be looking at what happened on October 22 and how to integrate it and have all the evidence brought forward. Unfortunately, and I say this with deep sincerity, the government is doing the top-down thing: no free vote, and putting forward a motion and then ridiculing any kind of critique.

I want to ask the whip how he can say, on the one hand, that he wants to preserve the freedoms of this place, and on the other hand say that there is no free vote. I do not understand that. I would ask him to explain how, on the one hand, he wants us as members of Parliament to preserve the security of this place, on which we agree, but then on the other hand say that there will be no free vote, that the government will whip everyone into shape and tell them what to think. How does he square that?

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been over three months since the events of October 22. There has been a lot of debate and discussion. We have a government initiative. We hoped for opposition support. It may be an overreach on our part to assume that this would happen, but we certainly have caucus solidarity on this issue.

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

That is not true.

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

It is imposed.

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

I know a couple of your members who do not agree.

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

Opposition members would like to suggest that there is not caucus solidarity on the government side, Mr. Speaker. They are incorrect.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

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.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, there was a moment when there were only two Conservative members in the House, and I wondered if we had quorum, but perhaps we do.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

There appears to be quorum in the chamber.

The hon. member for Hull-Aylmer.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

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.”

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.