Raymond Côté

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

In his report, the Auditor General indicated that the next step could be to unify the security forces on Parliament Hill under a single point of command, making it possible to respond to situations more efficiently and effectively. However, the Auditor General never says that they should report to anyone other than the sergeant-at-arms and the House of Commons security services. In fact, paragraph 67 of the report states the following:

67. We found that the House of Commons Security Services has implemented controls based on accepted security practices, and has adjusted its actions according to intelligence received.

The Auditor General already established that the sergeant-at-arms and his staff were up to the task. Why does the government want to bring in the RCMP?

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I will ask him a very simple question because he gave a long description of all the RCMP's responsibilities. However, ultimately, the sergeant-at-arms could coordinate these security forces.

Why does he not have faith in the sergeant-at-arms, who is responsible for security here in the House of Commons?

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Parkdale—High Park for her speech.

In a speech he made previously, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster indicated that in the United States there was the example of an independent police force that was adopted more than a century ago by Congress, made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate. It is a good example close by of a police force that has investigative authority comparable to that of other police forces, but reports strictly to the U.S. Congress.

If it is good enough for the United States to have a security service under the authority of the legislative branch and not the executive branch, then why would we in Canada allow the executive branch to stick its nose into the security of the legislative branch?

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I must nevertheless say that I am astounded by both his tone and the substance of what he told us.

I am proud to wear the pin that I received when I was sworn in as an MP. As everyone knows, this pin represents our position, but it is also a pass that enables us to circulate freely. Randomly connecting attacks that may have taken place elsewhere in the country or in the world with our fundamental freedom of movement, and especially with our freedom of speech and expression to represent our constituents, seems totally out of line to me.

We are getting away from the substance of this debate, which actually goes against your own authority, Mr. Speaker. This House is the legislative branch, which is independent from the executive branch. Why is my colleague perpetuating this confusion?

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Louis-Hébert for his very enlightening speech.

I cannot resist quoting from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition. I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to pages 121 and 122:

Police forces also may not enter the precinct to investigate the commission of an offence without permission from the Speaker. Cases have arisen where representatives of outside police forces have wanted to enter the precinct of Parliament for purposes of making an arrest, conducting an interrogation or executing a search warrant within the terms of the Criminal Code.

It states that the Speaker has the authority to grant or deny this, but that the Parliamentary precinct and the Parliament buildings are not a sanctuary or refuge for elected members. This privilege has been strictly defended by the Chair for decades.

I would like my colleague to comment on how the Chair has fiercely defended parliamentary privilege even against police powers of investigation.

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 16th, 2015]

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?

[Petitions, February 6th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to present a petition signed by several hundred people from the riding of Beauport—Limoilou regarding the hundreds of thousands of social housing units that are supported by agreements with the federal government. Those agreements are about to expire, and this is causing a great deal of concern among people who live in those housing units and people who work to support social housing.

I am presenting this petition to convey those concerns and so the government can address them.

[Public Safety, February 6th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, a Quebec City resident received a hefty fine from border services for having brought in a food powder containing 2.1% meat. This powder exceeded the limit by 0.1%, and she was fined $800. Eight hundred dollars for Bovril powdered bouillon is a bit much.

This story proves that the Conservatives' security priorities are misguided. This woman wrote a letter to the Minister of Public Safety. When will the minister respond?

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I always find it amusing to see the selective memory of my colleague from Winnipeg North, who refuses to accept the legacy of the Martin and Chrétien years.

That being said, shortly after my first election campaign, about eight years ago, I was talking with the manager of a big company in Quebec City that had several hundred employees. He told me that he thought the employment insurance scheme at the time was the height of idiocy, because it interfered with labour force mobility. This is in fact a legacy of a Liberal government. I thought his observation was very interesting.

As well, in a debate during my first campaign, I had a chance to bring my Liberal opponent’s attention to the fact that the Liberals had promised a child care system for families for years but had never followed through on their promise.

The Liberals have a pitiful track record when it comes to supporting the middle class. Why is he now boasting about a legacy of standing up for the middle class?

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister of state for her speech that dealt more with the topic of debate today than the speech by her Ontario colleague, who got off track talking about the difficulties Ontario consumers faced after Ontario Hydro was dismantled by the ultra-Conserative Mike Harris government. I should point out that a number ministers in the current federal cabinet were sitting at the time to misrepresent that disaster.

That said, I want to get back to the topic at hand and refer my colleague to the Bank of Canada's Monetary Policy Report. This report indicates that the excess capacity of Canadian businesses remains relatively high, as does the long-term unemployment rate for workers aged 25 to 54. We can therefore conclude that Canadian companies lack trust in the future and are therefore not investing. There has been very little investment to improve productivity in recent years. That is a legacy of this government.

Does my colleague agree with the Bank of Canada that there is a problem and that our businesses are not truly prepared to deal with the changes they face as a result of the low price of oil and the value of the Canadian dollar?