House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 47% of the vote.
Parliamentary Precinct Security February 16th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, the motion does not take anything away from the existing authority of the House. It would operate under the domain, for lack of a better word, of the Speakers of both the Senate and the House. When we set up straw dogs, such as what about this or that, we need to think in terms of the bigger picture and the security.
This motion does not take away any of the privileges from anybody in the House, and it leaves the security of the facilities with the Speakers of both Houses.
Parliamentary Precinct Security February 16th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, first, I am glad the member was also sworn in and received a pin that recognizes him as a member of Parliament. However, with all due respect, we are talking about the security of the precinct.
Life has changed in the last 10 years, life has changed in the last 148 years, and we must change with it. When we see what happens around the world with pressure-cooker bombs, shoe bombs, in addition to firearms, we know there is a need to enhance the security of this place.
Our people do a fantastic job, but we need to give them more tools and more opportunity to deal with outside agencies. This is not a closed circuit anymore. We all need to be involved in the whole area of security. It is so important we do this and move forward.
Parliamentary Precinct Security February 16th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on behalf of this motion. I have listened to the conversations across the aisle and I heard some equation to hockey. This is not about hockey. With all due respect, this is a very serious matter. It does not just address October 22. October 22 brought the matter to a very forceful light to us all.
On October 22, we were all very fortunate, the members in the House and Canadians who were also present here. We have an excellent security system with our security people inside the building and the RCMP on the outside, but that day we were faced with one individual with a lever action rifle. Had we been faced with more than one person with semi-automatic weapons, we would have been in a whole different situation.
The motion, with all due respect, would build upon some of the things that have already gone on. When I came here in 2004, our security people were not properly armed. I believe they have been far more armed and far more trained, and that is so appropriate. They do a superb job.
However, this is not about pitting our people in the security service in the House with the RCMP. This is about how we go forward to ensure the precinct stays safe, both inside and outside.
I forgot to mention, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to split my time with the member for Prince Edward—Hastings.
When we look at the motion, it is not about what my friends suggest on the other side, which is getting rid of the security people. It is not that at all. However, it would allow us to fulfill our duty as elected officials, to protect the safety of visitors, staff and members. As we go forward, it is important that we have that connection. As we are well aware, right now we have four different security agencies. We are trying to put two of them together right now, with the Senate and the House. However, on the outside, we have the RCMP and Ottawa city police. This is a vast area, so control is important.
On this side of the House, I believe we have 10 or 12 former police officers, members who have been connected with law enforcement. They understand the need to have some central control. That is certainly not to mean that every police agency, security agency and all of that would come under one. That is not it at all. It is so we would have some control and opportunities for people to have the communication that is so vital.
As the Auditor General indicated in his 2012 report on parliamentary precinct, our security forces would benefit from integration under a single command, allowing them to respond to situations much more efficiently and effectively. This is all about that.
As I said, if we had been faced with far more planning by the individual who came into the House, with different weapons and perhaps more of them, we would have been in hard times. This would have been a hard-pressed situation for the excellent security people we have here and for the RCMP on the outside.
It is time that we looked at this in a more modern vision to put these things together.
We have already said in our motion that our existing parliamentary security people are absolutely valued and respected. There is not a person in the House who is not grateful for the selfless work they do every day. That is why I am pleased the motion before us today states that their continued employment is assured.
I am also pleased the motion before us stresses that the rights and privileges of Parliament will remain respected as per our constitutional, conventional and historical practice. That is something I hear challenged on the other side. It is right in the motion that those things will continue. The rights and privileges of Parliament will remain unchanged, including privileges for the House of Commons and the Senate to control their own precincts and the rights of members to come and go unimpeded.
All of the discussions that come from the other side are all about us trying to minimize our current security personnel. That is not true. We respect our security people a great deal and we appreciate them. However, as we have found that in several other countries, such as Australia and the United Kingdom, they have had to merge into a single system to provide security. They have gone through those things. As we saw just this weekend in Halifax, we do not know where those problems will come from. In the Halifax situation, it would be alleged that there was certainly more than one individual and maybe more than one firearm.
We need to think about that in the bigger picture and not only on October 22. Our people did an excellent job on October 22, but it is about October 22 next year and what we may face.
The integration of the House of Commons and Senate force is a great first step. This motion would build upon that as we go forward.
I also firmly believe this motion builds on the Auditor General's recommendations and would give us the kind of security we need. It would balance the desired level of access with sufficient security to ensure risks are mitigated.
The government is committed to making this a better and safer place. I urge all members to support this motion so that you, Mr. Speaker, can move forward expeditiously with the Speaker of the Senate.
Parliamentary Precinct Security February 6th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the member speak all day long. Most of it is half truths at best. There has been no word at all about not allowing Canadians on the front lawn. In fact, it is exactly the opposite.
Why he would try to turn this thing around into something it is not defies logic. Why he would not think it is important that we have security all operating in one silo, as opposed to three, again defies logic.
It is not about replacing our current security people, who have the utmost respect of everybody in the House. It is to bring them under one umbrella. I do not know why he would be opposed to that. Maybe he has some reason that nobody else can understand.
Could he try to explain it?
Business of Supply February 2nd, 2015
Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I think you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:30 p.m.
Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act January 30th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, if you seek it I believe you will find consent to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.
Health January 30th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, there is a disturbing report out of Markham today about a marijuana grow op that is being allowed to operate beside, of all places, a grade school. Parents are being forced to deal with their kids literally coming home reeking of pot because of this grow op. Our Conservative government has made these home grow ops illegal, but the courts are being used to let them continue, causing risk to health and safety.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister please tell us what our government is doing to fight this?
Taxation January 28th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, under the strong leadership of our Prime Minister, our government is on track to balance Canada's budget, and we are now in a position to help Canadian families balance theirs.
Our plan gives new money to 100% of families with children, and the vast majority of benefits go to low and middle-income families. With the enhancement of the universal child care benefit, moms and dads in Oxford, and across the country, will receive nearly $2,000 per year for every child under 6, and $720 per year for every child between the ages of 6 and 17.
The NDP and the Liberals want to take this money away and spend it on big government bureaucracy instead. Instead of giving decision-making power to parents, the NDP and the Liberals want Ottawa bureaucracy telling families what to do. That is not right.
Our government knows that parents know what is best for their kids, and we are proud to be the only party standing up for them.
Government Policies December 12th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, around the world, we see economies struggling and political gridlock paralyzing decision-making. Last night, we saw a gridlock in the U.S. Congress bring the American government to the verge of a shutdown that was averted only at the last minute.
On this last sitting day of 2014, can the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons tell us how our Parliament's productive, hard-working, and orderly approach contrasts with the economic uncertainty, political gridlock, and paralysis we see outside of Canada?
Public Safety December 12th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to report that private member's bill, Bill C-483, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence), passed third reading in the Senate yesterday. I would like to thank the members of the House and the Senate for supporting the bill.
The bill deals with release provisions for escorted temporary absences of offenders serving life sentences. Now offenders will remain under the control of the National Parole Board for the duration of their term. This means that the families of victims will retain having their concerns heard and taken into account when decisions regarding escorted temporary absences are being made for those serving sentences for the most heinous crimes. The bill also ensures that decision makers are accountable to the public for the approval or refusal of an escorted temporary absence.
I would also like to especially thank Kim Hancox, the widow of Detective Constable William Hancox, for all of her time, effort and support for this bill. I look forward to seeing it become enacted into law soon.