13757 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 212 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Tuesday, May 12, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES May 12, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 212 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 212 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 212 (Version officielle) 147 212 12 05 2015 2015/05/12 10:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2 The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1005) [ English ] Government Response to Petitions Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 18 petitions.

Removal of Serious Foreign Criminals Act Hon. Julian Fantino (for the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) Bill C-60. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-60,

An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act . (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Committees of the House Justice and Human Rights Mr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 23rd report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-590,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (blood alcohol content) . [ Translation ] The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[ English ] Health Mr. Ben Lobb (Huron—Bruce, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Health in relation to its study on the main estimates, 2015-16. It is one hard-working committee.

Petitions Impaired Driving Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition that sadly informs the House that Geoff Gaston was tragically killed by a drunk driver who chose to drive while impaired. The Gaston family has been left devastated. Families for Justice is a group of Canadians who have also lost loved ones who were killed by impaired drivers. They believe that Canada's impaired driving laws are much too lenient. They want the crime to be called what it is, vehicular homicide. They also want mandatory sentencing for those convicted of this crime.

Public Safety Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand today to present a petition signed by hundreds of my constituents against Bill C-51 . They are calling on the House of Commons to stop this attack on civil liberties by joining the official opposition to stop Bill C-51 .

Komagata Maru Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I table a petition signed by many constituents of Winnipeg North asking the government to recognize that the Punjab assembly in India unanimously passed a resolution calling on the Canadian Parliament to apologize for the Komagata Maru incident. They are asking the government to provide a formal apology in Parliament with respect to that particular incident of 1914. Iraq Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present this morning.

In the first, the petitioners are calling on Parliament to do everything it can to protect Christians in areas of Iraq where they are being particularly targeted.

Genetically Modified Foods Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on Parliament to put in place mandatory labelling for food that has been genetically modified.

Sex Selection Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in the third petition, the petitioners call on Parliament to condemn the worst possible discrimination that there can be against girls, which is through gender-selective abortion. They are calling on Parliament to condemn the practice of gender-selective abortion.

Canada Post Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to give voice to the frustration and, dare I say, anger felt by many of my constituents about the Conservative government's decision to cancel door-to-door mail delivery and install community mailboxes. In my riding of Hamilton Mountain, Canada Post has now started the installation, and the petition campaign is ratcheting up again.

The petitioners are appalled that the Conservatives would allow Canada Post to eliminate home delivery for millions of customers, set up community mailboxes without getting the requisite permits from the city, put thousands of employees out of work, and then have the gall to raise the price of stamps. Our postal service helps to connect us, and these cuts will unfairly impact the most vulnerable in our society, including seniors and people with disabilities.

For all of those reasons, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to stop these devastating cuts to our postal service and look instead for ways to modernize operations. The Conservatives continue to find millions of dollars for their well-connected friends. It is time they found a way to keep the mail coming to our doors.

Impaired Driving Mr. Devinder Shory (Calgary Northeast, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by hundreds of Calgarians calling for a change in the law around drunk driving in memory of my constituent Francis Pesa, who was struck by a drunk driver on January 1, 2014, and died a few days later. The petitioners ask Parliament to recognize the devastation caused by drunk driving, to respond by changing the definition of impaired driving causing death to that of vehicular manslaughter, and to attach minimum sentences upon conviction. Drunk driving is a serious problem and requires serious sentences in response.

[ Translation ] Agriculture Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to present these three petitions on respecting the rights of small family farms to store, trade and use seed. The petitioners are calling on Parliament to commit to adopting international aid policies that support small farmers, especially women, thereby recognizing their vital role in the struggle against hunger and poverty.

Consumer Protection Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition to put an end to unfair fees and rip-offs. The petitioners are asking the government to limit credit card interest rates and ATM fees and to appoint a gas price ombudsman to ensure that there is no collusion between oil companies.

[ English ] The Environment Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today with respect to the climate change accountability act. The signatories to this petition are expressing their concerns with respect to the inaction of our federal government to address climate change in light of the impact of climate change on the day-to-day lives of Canadians. They are expressing their concerns about the billions of dollars in public money given to the oil and gas industry in the form of subsidies.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to support the NDP's climate change accountability act, a law that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and hold the government accountable.

(1010) Agriculture Mr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, after discussions with constituents, they asked me to publicly petition the House to respect the right for small-scale family farmers to preserve, exchange, and use cereal seeds. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions to the House this morning. The first petition is from residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands to specifically encourage the Government of Canada to develop policies internationally to assist family farmers, who are often women, so that the policies work to protect the rights of small family farmers in the global south.

Security Certificates Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of British Columbia outside of my riding, primarily from Grand Forks, and a few from Ottawa as well. The petitioners call upon the government to re-examine the whole regime of security certificates, pointing out that holding people for very long times with essentially secret trials violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Questions on the Order Paper

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

[ Translation ] Privilege Physical Obstruction—Speaker's Ruling Speaker's Ruling The Speaker : I am now prepared to rule on the questions of privilege raised on April 30, 2015, by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and on May 8, 2015, by the member for Toronto—Danforth regarding the delays they and other members experienced in gaining access to Parliament Hill.

I would like to thank the members for having raised this matter, as well as the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons , the House Leader of the Official Opposition , the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons , and the members for Saanich—Gulf Islands , London—Fanshawe , Winnipeg North , Hamilton Centre , Ottawa—Vanier , Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles , Saint-Lambert and Northumberland—Quinte West for their comments. [ English ] Before we start to look at the issues that were raised, the Chair would like to take a few seconds to deal with the comments on the timing of questions of privilege.

Some members alluded to the fact that some interventions were made at a very specific moment in order to delay or prevent business. I am sure all members would agree that it would be unfortunate for a subject as important as parliamentary privilege and the right of access of members to be trivialized in any way, either by raising what some might call “nuisance” questions of privilege or by quickly dismissing outright such claims of privilege simply because they are perceived to be impeding the normal course of business.

In raising his question of privilege, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley explained that, on April 30, he and several other members were attempting to access the parliamentary precinct through the East Block entrance in order to attend a vote in the House when the shuttle bus they were on was stopped temporarily by an RCMP officer.

While acknowledging the need to keep Parliament secure, the member insisted that this physical obstruction constituted a denial of reasonable, timely access to the parliamentary precinct, thereby impeding him from performing his parliamentary duties and constituting a breach of privilege. [ Translation ] The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons claimed that, since the RCMP had determined that the bus in question had been delayed for only 74 seconds, this case amounted to no more than a momentary delay, which does not qualify as a breach of the privileges of the House.

He contended that, while denial of access to the precinct is indeed a breach of members’ privileges, a delay should not be considered as such unless it is a significant one. Calling for a measured, reasonable perspective, the government House leader explained that the privilege of access to the parliamentary precinct is not an unqualified right, and that issues of safety and security may temper this right of access in certain situations. [ English ] Then on May 8, 2015, the member for Toronto—Danforth complained of delayed access to Centre Block that day by an RCMP officer.

He noted that the officer had received orders to stop all individuals from entering while a delegation of VIPs accessed the building, orders which made no distinction between the rights of members of Parliament and those of the general public. Maintaining the length of the delay was irrelevant, the member for Toronto—Danforth contended that this incident also constituted a breach of privilege. [ Translation ] To begin, I will remind the House of the well-defined, albeit limited, role of the Chair in determining matters of privilege.

O’Brien-Bosc, at page 141, states: Great importance is attached to matters involving privilege. ...The function of the Speaker is limited to deciding whether the matter is of such a character as to entitle the Member who has raised the question to move a motion which will have priority over Orders of the Day; that is, in the Speaker’s opinion, there is a prima facie question of privilege. If there is, the House must take the matter into immediate consideration.

Ultimately, it is the House which decides whether a breach of privilege or a contempt has been committed. (1015) [ English ] The two incidents now before the House have served as a clear reminder that members not only require but are entitled to access to the parliamentary precinct at all times, without interference.

This is uncontested. [ Translation ] In 2004, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, having considered a question of privilege related to the physical obstruction of members, stated in its twenty-first report: The denial of access to Members of the House—even if temporary—is unacceptable, and constitutes a contempt of the House. Members must not be impeded or interfered with while on their way to the Chamber, or when going about their parliamentary business.

To permit this would interfere with the operation of the House of Commons, and undermine the pre-eminent right of the House to the service of its Members. [ English ] In listening to the submissions of members on this issue, it is clear to the Chair that the larger issue of security in the parliamentary precinct is a major preoccupation for members, one that informs their perspective on individual incidents and that now looms large given the changing security environment on Parliament Hill as a result of the events of October 22, 2014.

Following those events, members will recall that I ordered a comprehensive review of our security systems and procedures. Parliamentary security operations have since been tightened and have continued to evolve, leading up to the Senate and House's decision to unify the protective services in November 2014.

Then on February 16, 2015, the House adopted a motion calling on the Speaker of the House, in coordination with the Speaker of 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; That the House chose to make this decision is not a matter for the Chair to comment on, other than to say that from a procedural standpoint the motion was taken up by the House in accordance with our rules and practices and remains a valid decision, which the Speaker is bound to implement.

Since then, considerable progress has been made toward arriving at an agreement to have the RCMP lead physical security services throughout the parliamentary precinct and Parliament Hill. Yet there is no denying that ensuring the security, in a changed world and in a changed arrangement, for all who enter the parliamentary precinct, is going to present some challenges as we transition to the new security regime. However, none of this obviates what I stated in my ruling of March 15, 2012, where I confirmed the importance of members' right of access to the precinct.

I stated at page 6333 of Debates : ...the implementation of security measures cannot override the right of members to unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct, free from obstruction or interference. As Speaker, it is my role to support the House and its members as we proceed with various changes to our security arrangements. This includes, but is not limited to, ensuring that any and all changes uphold the privileges, immunities, and powers of the House, as has always been the case.

Several members have expressed concern that a heightened level of security could lead to more incidents where members are unnecessarily impeded as they carry out or attempt to carry out their Parliamentary duties. The incidents raised by the members for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and Toronto—Danforth have certainly served to highlight those broader concerns.

I would like to assure all hon. members that protecting the rights and privileges of the House and of its members is a priority for me as our security forces continue to work in close partnership in order to provide a safe environment for all members, parliamentary staff, and visitors to the Hill. [ Translation ] The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, in its thirty-fourth report regarding the free movement of members of Parliament within the parliamentary precinct, summed up the challenge when it stated: Cases of privilege in which Members have had their right to unimpeded access to the Parliamentary Precinct denied have occurred in the recent past with all too great a frequency.

The Committee considers the best solution to this issue to be improved planning, greater coordination between partners, and increased education and awareness of security services and Members. [ English ] As your Speaker, I can only agree. In fact, I recently had occasion to discuss this challenge with Commissioner Paulson, who agrees that all protective personnel need to know the community they serve. They need to be sensitive and responsive to the community they serve, and they need to be familiar with the expectations of the community they serve.

This includes having the primary function of this place top of mind as they go about performing their duties. At the same time, we as members need to be mindful that increased security does require adjustments. It may mean that members will notice changes that will make the grounds and buildings safer while still ensuring that they can carry out their work. This is consistent with the ruling I delivered on March 15, 2012, in which I stated: As we all know, the parliamentary precinct and its buildings exist primarily to support the functions of the legislative branch.

The Centre Block in particular, housing as it does the House of Commons and Senate chambers, is a working building where parliamentary proceedings are carried out and where members must be free to perform their duties without interference even when other activities are taking place. Needless to say, these heritage buildings, especially Centre Block, are also ideal venues for all sorts of events and we are all proud to showcase them for our distinguished visitors.

However...extra care is needed to ensure that competing requirements regarding the use of the buildings and precinct are understood, with due accommodations and with the proper balance. In this light, emphasizing the notion of balance, questions raised by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons are pertinent with regard to defining what constitutes an impediment to unfettered access for members to the parliamentary precinct and buildings. It would indeed be unfortunate for members to carry the concept of physical obstruction to illogical and unreasonable lengths.

However, I would caution that the House ought not either to fall into the trap of assessing these matters on the sole basis of the duration of a delay or impediment. One can easily imagine a situation where even a very brief obstruction, depending on its severity or nature, could lead a Speaker to arrive at a prima facie finding of privilege and to allow a debate in the House.

Therefore, for these reasons and given the arguments presented by hon. members and in view of the vital importance of this issue to all members, particularly in this current context, I have concluded that the broader subject matter of the rights of access of members merits immediate consideration. I have come to this conclusion so that the House has the opportunity to hear the views of members on the balance that must be struck between the need for reasonable and timely access to the House for members and the support and guidance this House can provide to its security partners.

This contribution will be important as we continue to navigate the transition with which we will be faced in the coming months. Accordingly, I will now invite the member for Toronto—Danforth to move his motion. (1020) [ Translation ] Mr.

Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) Motion moved: That the questions of privilege raised on April 30, 2015, by the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and on May 8 by the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth regarding the fact that hon. members were delayed when trying to access Parliament Hill be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. [ English ] He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley .

I think it is important for me to briefly recap, for those who were not present or listening last week, why I felt that even a momentary delay of what I admit was less than a minute raises major issues that the procedure and House affairs committee really will have to take seriously. What happened basically involved an indistinguishable stopping of everyone coming up one side of Parliament Hill heading toward the Centre Block within immediate proximity of the doors that MPs always enter. The reason, as was made very clear by the officer, was that she was under orders to stop everyone.

I will emphasize again, as I did in my intervention last week, that the officer was firm and polite, and I have no concerns at all with the officer. I am sorry; I am actually going to split my time with the member for Burnaby—New Westminster . I have no idea how long the group was there as I was walking up the Hill before I arrived, but the fact of the matter is that when I arrived, I presented myself to the officer as I was trying to pass, and the conversation that ensued is now on the record of Hansard .

The officer indicated that she was under orders to make no distinction between any members of the public, anyone else, and MPs. Indeed, structurally, there was nothing about the way the crowd control was working to suggest that any distinction had been made. There was no ability for an officer to stand and wave MPs through or to ask, “Are there any MPs here? Please go through.” There was nothing like that. It was a one-size-fits-all approach. This was confirmed when she then called through to whatever was command central for this welcoming of the President of the Philippines to the Hill.

They did not bother addressing the issue of whether an MP could go through while the others were waiting, because the moment she called, they solved the problem by letting everybody through. I assume that was a coincidence of timing. Nonetheless, it was clear from the overall situation that there were, again, indistinguishable orders.

On that front, I would like to now move to two arguments that I believe the Speaker has put in context in his ruling just now but that have been raised twice now by the government House leader on the question of privilege by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and on my question of privilege. One is, effectively, that he has come before the House and asked the Speaker to take his word for facts that he and the government have investigated in tandem with the RCMP. The first problem is that it is not the role of the government to conduct these kinds of investigations.

Second, I would like to read an excerpt from the House leader's intervention on the question of privilege by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley . He stated: ...I can tell you that the public safety minister's office has advised that that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police reviewed the surveillance camera footage and determined that the green bus in question was indeed delayed for some 74 seconds.... He went on to say that was a mere momentary delay and that for that reason, the privilege motion should be dismissed.

The fact of the matter is that the procedure and House affairs committee needs to look at what the lines of authority are here. The House leader comes into the House, gets word from another minister of the crown about what that minister of the crown had discussed with the RCMP, and then, in a not-so-subtle fashion, expects the Speaker to say, “Thank you very much for doing my work and thank you very much for reporting to me what the RCMP has said.” I am very glad that the Speaker has obviously decided that this is not the role of the government and not the role of the House leader.

I would also like to point out that the Speaker went back into precedents and quoted one precedent that said that even a momentary delay can be a breach of privilege. However, the government is now trying to reshape the law of privilege around the idea that just any delay at all, as long as it is short, is not a breach of privilege. It went so far as to argue last week that the recent report on the question of privilege by the member for Acadie—Bathurst actually stated that the PROC report put forward the idea that momentary delays are not a breach of privilege.

(1025) No such words at all appear in that report. In fact, it is very clear that the committee was expressing concern by the very sentence that the Speaker just read in the House now on his ruling, when he read, in French, this sentence: Cases of privilege in which Members have had the right to unimpeded access to the Parliamentary Precinct denied have occurred in the recent past with all too great a frequency.

For that to appear in the PROC report from the most recent case and for the Speaker to now read it again is diametrically opposed to the spin that the House leader is trying to put on the law of privilege in this House when he says that report ruled that a momentary delay meant there was no privilege breached in that case. That is a completely out-of-bounds argument, as far as I am concerned.

I took care, and I took care at the beginning of these remarks as well, to emphasize—and this is actually consistent with the recent report on privilege with respect to the member for Acadie—Bathurst —that there was no fault on behalf of the officers. The officers are working within a system. They are following orders. The question is the system. How are, in these two instances, VIPs handled? What kind of priority are they given over members of Parliament to access? What kinds of easy procedures could be available that the RCMP has so far declined to put into place?

An example would be to have, at all access points, a designated RCMP officer to check or let through or look out for members of Parliament while everybody else has to wait. There is nothing like that. Instead, they put a lone officer out under orders to block everybody, regardless of whether or not they are an MP. My guess is they are putting out recent recruits to do this, people who have not even been properly versed on what parliamentary privilege is or why it is important for members to get to the House on time. At one level, it is of absolute importance.

If I wanted to be in the House because I had limited time to hear a debate or to possibly ask a question, et cetera, that, in and of itself, is enough reason for me to be in any hurry I want. However, beyond that, votes are crucial in this place, and they can come up at unexpected times that overlap with times when VIPs are visiting. The idea that 30 seconds or a minute or whatever is always de minimis is already in trouble with respect to the logic of the timeframes within which we operate in this place.

The idea that the House leader has raised on occasion is almost a suggestion that MPs are sitting on their posteriors, waiting to the very last minute before they rush to the House, and, therefore, if they are delayed a bit at that point, they are to blame. In actual fact, votes disrupt everything else MPs are doing, and they often try to finish what they are doing in the knowledge that they will have enough time to get there in the ordinary course of events.

This just-in-time arrival of a good number of the people who are voting on any given motion is also a part of our life on the Hill, and the moment that gets interfered with, we are going to potentially have problems with multiple people not making votes. At the moment, we have been lucky with respect to those who have been delayed but who have managed to arrive just in time.

With respect to the whole question of VIPs, the mere fact that the RCMP officer said it was a VIP, as broad a category as that is, versus a visiting head of state, just to give it some context, suggests that a broad-brush approach is being taking by whoever is in charge of federal policing on the Hill. Ultimately, it is the Deputy Commissioner. I am now no longer personally convinced that the Deputy Commissioner is listening to any of these debates on what privilege amounts to. It would have been so easy to set up procedures to ensure MPs can get through. That has not been done.

I think we need to have the procedure and House affairs committee hear this matter—not in any extended way, but in a way that would focus upon systems so that we get precise information from the RCMP about what the orders are and what training procedures are in place. How do we know that the RCMP is even listening to these reports and to the Speaker's rulings? (1030) [ Translation ] Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Toronto—Danforth .

Would he agree to having the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs also consider the issue of linguistic ability? Four times now, when I arrived at the Hill gate by car, I was stopped and not one of the constables could speak French. All four times this caused delays. One time, there were three other people and I had to wait for a fourth person to arrive by car. This caused a delay of four or five minutes. I wonder whether my colleague would agree to have this type of delay considered by the committee as well because it has held me up a number of times. Mr. Craig Scott : Mr.

Speaker, this is certainly disconcerting. I am not exactly sure what the Speaker's ruling delivered a few minutes ago encompasses, but when it comes to the surveillance and protection systems on the Hill, including those at Centre Block, I think they should include the ability to address the members in both languages. If that is not possible, this will lead to other problems. I think this could be on the table during our discussions at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. (1035) [ English ] Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr.

Speaker, this opportunity to discuss the role of Parliament, parliamentary privilege, security and the role of visiting dignitaries needs to be examined at PROC, and we need to go back to first principles. Parliament is supreme. Parliament is not the place of the head of state. Parliament is where government happens. Traditionally in this country, and I am old enough to remember, most heads of state used to be greeted at Rideau Hall. That was the convention and it did not interrupt parliamentary procedure.

We have, in recent years, become inconvenienced in Parliament by the arrival of visiting dignitaries with the automatic assumption that if a head of state is visiting from another country and the Prime Minister wishes to roll red carpets through the middle of this place, unfurl flags and hold a ceremony, parliamentary activities have to be secondary to that activity. I suggest that activity contravenes our Constitution, and we need to pay attention to the supremacy of Parliament, the role of parliamentarians and our ability to do our work without being impeded.

The supremacy of Parliament is a principle that matters. The Prime Minister reports to Parliament, not the other way around. Mr. Craig Scott : Mr. Speaker, these are very good points, and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has made them before in other debates on privilege. It is a serious point, the question of whether our head of state, the Governor General, should presumptively be the one at whose residence and workplace foreign dignitaries are received, with the exception being otherwise where planning can go on in a way that still allows for all of our activity to go on.

There is a constitutional issue, and there is a de facto constant infringement going on when the executive branch is using the parliamentary precinct as its way of dealing with the rest of the world through VIP showcasing. The Speaker said that these are great premises and we want to show them off to the world. We cannot disagree. However, the idea of using this as an automatic place for whenever the Prime Minister wants to put on a diplomatic show probably does need to be looked at to see whether this could be better done, and probably with less cost, at Rideau Hall. [ Translation ] Mr.

Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, thank you for the ruling that you just made. It is worrisome that other members are raising additional questions regarding the quick changes that were imposed by the government a few months ago to the structure that has always been in place on Parliament Hill. This debate will allow us to talk a little more about an extremely troubling trend. We are seeing more and more opposition members rising in the House because they are being denied access to Parliament.

As we have seen in the case of the member for Toronto—Danforth and the other cases that occurred just within the past few days, involving the member for London—Fanshawe and the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley , the pattern is becoming increasingly clear. The member for Ottawa—Vanier also just raised an important point about the equality of the two official languages as it pertains to access to Parliament Hill. [ English ] We are seeing these increased concerns raised by members of Parliament and the trend is very worrisome.

More and more frequently we are seeing members of Parliament who are not able to access their workplace here on Parliament Hill. As members of Parliament, we are called upon to do many things and to work very hard on behalf of our constituents. That means often coming into the House with a few minutes' notice to speak on important bills. Often the government does not provide us with the notice that it should, so we have to rapidly get to the House. We also have a government that will often hold surprise votes, particularly on closure and time allocation.

We have seen 95 of them through the course of this Parliament. That is beyond, without any doubt, the worst history of any government in Canadian history. It has invoked closure or time allocation 95 times. These votes are often a surprise. As members of Parliament, we need access to the House so that we can debate the issues, often at a moment's notice because the government does not want to provide that notice. Often at a moment's notice we come here to vote on issues such as time allocation.

The idea that somehow delays of a few minutes are inconsequential and should be dismissed has been the argument we have been hearing from the government side now for a couple of weeks. As these incidents multiply, there are more and more concerns about the ability to actually get into the House of Commons. I profoundly disagree with the idea that the government raises, that it is inconsequential for a member to miss votes or to not be able to take their place in debate,. Mr. Speaker, why has there been this multiplication of blocked access to Parliament Hill? You know the reason as well as I do.

We raised one of the concerns a few months ago when the government rammed through the House major security changes. It rammed them through with very little notice, no consultation with the Speaker, no consultation with opposition parties. It simply rammed through directly from the Prime Minister 's Office this idea that they could change the scope of security on Parliament Hill. I want to quote the member for Hull—Aylmer , our whip at that time, who raised these concerns when the government provoked that sudden debate to shake up the security system here on Parliament Hill.

At that time she said that the motion before us will not achieve “better integration, better training, better equipment and more resources dedicated to our safety”, upon which all members of Parliament would agree. She said, “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.”

(1040) She said: 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.

What we have seen subsequent to that is the government overriding the Speaker's ability and the Speaker's prerogative. It is a multiplication of the government's attempt to usurp what had been Parliamentary traditions in place in this country for almost a century and a half. We saw that in the reaction both to the issues raised by the member for Toronto—Danforth and the members for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and London—Fanshawe . The government simply said that it has investigated and it dismisses it, when it is your prerogative, Mr. Speaker.

We had never heard those words from any government in Canadian history, but the current government is one that has attacked the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, that has diminished the ability of the Auditor General to do the valuable work that he provides and that has attacked the Chief Electoral Officer. The government has absolutely no respect for institutions, and the Prime Minister seemingly wants to control more and more. If they want the control, control comes with responsibility. On this side of the House, we have been fighting every step of the way.

I profoundly believe that on October 19, we are going to see Canadians, as they did in Alberta, push back on this idea that one party can control everything. They will be electing a vastly different House of Commons on October 19. That vastly different House of Commons will have a majority of New Democratic Party members, and those members will choose a different path under the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition . They have then taken this control.

The PROC report, as my colleague for Toronto—Danforth mentioned so eloquently, actually provided guidelines for that control, and what was needed was better planning. What we have seen is worse planning, which is why the situation on access to Parliament Hill has deteriorated so markedly over the last few weeks. That is why increasingly members of Parliament do not have access to Parliament in an immediate and automatic way, which risks leading to missed votes. It certainly leads to the risk of not being here to speak in debate. However, the better planning has not happened.

Under the Prime Minister 's direction, we have seen instead a lot of improvised diplomatic shows, as the member for Toronto—Danforth said so eloquently. The government does not seem to want to answer questions in question period. The Prime Minister does not seem to want to rise to answer questions in the House of Commons. In fact, members will recall that in May and June, 2014, the Prime Minister rose to answer questions in the House only five times in the final five weeks of Parliament. Only five times did the Prime Minister deign to actually respond to questions that were being asked in the House of Commons.

We are seeing the same pattern repeating. I do not recall the last time that the Prime Minister actually rose in the House to answer questions. I think it might have been a week and a half ago. I am not even talking about the quality of questions. I am talking about the fact that he is not rising to answer them at all. However, we are seeing lots of diplomatic shows arranged at the last minute, increasingly preventing our access to Parliament Hill. This breach of privilege is quite clear, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad that you have ruled in favour of the member for Toronto—Danforth and the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley , with the participation of many other members. This trend has to stop. The government has to start respecting the traditions of the Speaker and it has to plan better, not worse. Hopefully, the debate that we are having today will lead to better planning on the part of the government so that it is not stopping opposition members.

The officers involved are showing good faith and professionalism, but they are under the direction of a new security apparatus that the government pushed through the House and put into place. The government has the responsibility for better planning to avoid these incidents in the future.

(1045) [ Translation ] Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a few points. First, I would like to talk about security when there is an emergency situation. For example, when Mr. Bibeau attacked Parliament, the entire security system deployed. Under such circumstances, even members lose their rights and that is fairly normal. However, I would also like to mention the questionable 74 seconds that the Speaker seems to have accepted.

That is completely unacceptable, since before that, a shuttle bus could not get through when the new security barriers, which retract into the ground, failed because they are already rusty and corroded from the salt even though they are new. What does my colleague think about that? Would the member like to add that to the requests that other members are making? This system jammed. The bus had to do the whole tour and come back to try to enter. The RCMP does not have a checkpoint when we come by shuttle bus to get to the East Block.

We have the right to go straight through when the barriers go down and there was therefore no reason for the RCMP to stop the shuttle bus from entering at that time. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. These are all examples of measures that previously were the responsibility of the Speaker's office. In my opinion, everyone had confidence in the structure that was in place. Improvements to training and coordination were needed, as we have always said. However, the government did not consult us.

It could have said to the opposition that this issue requires discussion by all MPs in order to find common ground in the good old Canadian tradition, and to have a consensus on improving the security system and preventing the problems that the member mentioned. Instead, the government is proposing absolutely nothing, neither solutions nor discussions. The Prime Minister's Office imposed this new system without planning. Even though all police officers are acting in good faith, they have put in place a system that is making access more and more difficult. Naturally, that is a problem.

What we always say to the government is that instead of being partisan, it could sit down with opposition members to reach a consensus and improve security without preventing the public and members from having access to Parliament Hill. It is obvious that a more practical and understanding government would have a discussion with opposition members. That was not done in this case and we can see the results.

(1050) Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech on this very worrisome and increasingly common problem. It is something we hear about more and more. I would like some clarifications about the discussions that members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will have if we adopt the motion we are talking about today, regarding the problem underlying these two breaches of privilege with respect to the member for Toronto—Danforth and the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley .

The underlying problem is that the government is taking control of the parliamentary precinct, and this will only get worse in the coming months with the implementation of new security measures on Parliament Hill. Could my colleague talk about the risks associated with this?

Is it important for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine the fact that the executive is taking control and is trying to control everything that goes on, instead of Parliament itself having sovereign control over Parliament Hill and the parliamentary precinct as well as over the movement of members of Parliament within the precinct? Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member for Sherbrooke , who chairs one of the most prestigious committees on Parliament Hill.

This member has a good understanding and quickly learned the rules and procedures of the House of Commons, as well as the importance of a dialogue among all the parties in the House. However, there was never any dialogue because the government took control. A motion was imposed on the House and now we can see the outcome: there is less access and the planning is worse than before. Things obviously need to change, and we hope that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will look at this issue and give the government some very clear direction. [ English ] Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, my comments will be somewhat brief. I have the good fortune of being the Liberal Party's representative on the procedures and House affairs committee and have had the opportunity to deal with this. It is an issue that has come before PROC relatively recently. We have had the Commissioner of the RCMP and many different security personnel come, including the former sergeant-at-arms, Kevin Vickers.

Listening to what was said, both publicly and in camera, members will find that members of Parliament of all political stripes treat the issue of privilege and access to the parliamentary precinct in a very serious fashion. The House of Commons deals with the passage of laws, the making of budgets, and different programs. There are very important debates that take place in this House and obviously many important votes. A member having a sense that he or she has access at any time is of critical importance. No one wants to see delays that would prevent members from getting into the chamber in a timely fashion.

In listening to the discussions at PROC in dealing with this, I was of the opinion that there was a great deal of general good will to try to improve the system. When this particular issue of privilege was raised, I stated that if we are going to err, it is better to err on the side of having to review this once again as opposed to not taking this issue seriously. That is the reason I am quite comfortable and pleased with the Speaker's ruling that this matter be debated once again and voted on and then, hopefully, go to the procedures and House affairs committee.

My concern is that if it goes to the procedures and House affairs committee, we will get different presenters to come before the committee and provide input as to where we go from here, and I am not convinced that this the best course of action. We could be looking at ways we can actually develop a process with which all members are comfortable. I am not convinced that people are comfortable with the process. If members of Parliament are not comfortable with the process, I suspect that there is a greater likelihood that we will have points of privilege in the future.

We need to establish that process or protocol so that all members feel comfortable that they do indeed have access. There needs to be coordination at the security level. We recognize the importance of security, for obvious reasons, here on the Hill and in the parliamentary precinct. However, there has to be a balance, recognizing that it is of utmost importance that members of Parliament have unfettered access to attend the House of Commons in a timely fashion. It goes beyond just the floor; it also includes committee responsibilities and so on.

I understand that there are issues that could be discussed at PROC with the idea of seeing if we can come up with a unanimous report on how to put this issue to rest.

(1055) I recognize that there are major renovations that have been taking place over the last number of years. Some of those renovations have led to the problems we have had. However, there are going to be a great many more renovations in the future, which may impact state visits and what takes place here on the Hill. My colleague from Ottawa has raised issues as well. I suspect that there could be a great deal of value in caucuses, along with independents, having an opportunity to convey their concerns. Perhaps members who have an interest in the issue may be invited to participate at the PROC meeting.

When we look at what takes place inside the House, including the making of laws, the passing of budgets, and the many different votes that take place, we recognize how important it is that members of Parliament have the right to have access. Therefore, it is very important that we do what we can to protect that right. On a side point, I would suggest that this is not a reflection whatsoever of the fantastic work all the different security forces do to provide a safe environment here on the Hill.

They are outstanding in what they do for us, but we need to take a better look and come up with a process we are all comfortable with. At the end of the day, we should feel comfortable that if there is a need to get into the chamber, MPs will be afforded the opportunity to get here as quickly and directly as possible for the many different meetings, whether they are in MPs' offices, the Confederation Building, the Valour Building, or the justice buildings.

MPs need to feel comfortable knowing that they can get here in a timely fashion without being stopped and detained, which could ultimately lead to an MP missing a vote or an opportunity to contribute to a debate.

(1100) Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we have a rule by tradition in this House, because this is the House of Commons. It is the house of the common people, with the right of the people of Canada to have their representatives come and represent them. It is why we have the Sergeant-at-Arms and the door closed. It is to protect our right to do our democratic duties. However, there have been two dramatic changes we have seen under the current Conservative government.

First of all, it is taking the control of the House of Commons outside of the House of Commons and is turning it over to the RCMP. This is not a slur against the work of the RCMP, but we are now under a different security service, and the supremacy of Parliament has been changed. The other element I would like to ask my hon. colleague about is the fact that the current Prime Minister continually uses Parliament now as a photographic backdrop for his events, where this has not been the tradition.

In the case of my colleague for Toronto—Danforth , he was allegedly told by a police officer that there may be a vote but he was not allowed in the House of Commons because it was for dignitaries. That is something I am deeply concerned about. Parliament is supposed to be for the work of parliamentarians. That parliamentarians are not allowed to access the Hill because it is for dignitaries and important people for a photo-op is deeply disturbing.

I can see my colleagues on the other side who ridicule and shoot their mouths off, because they show no respect for Parliament, but I am here to represent the rights of parliamentarians to speak in the House. I would like to ask my hon. colleague what he thinks about the issue of our being told, as parliamentarians, that when a vote is happening or our work is under way that we can be held up because Parliament, our building, the House of Commons, is being used by the Prime Minister for photo-ops and various photo issues with whoever is coming at a given time.

I find that an affront, and it is a threat to what we have established through hundreds and hundreds of years of parliamentary tradition. No matter what— The Deputy Speaker : Order, please. The member has far exceeded his time for a question. The hon. member for Winnipeg North. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : Mr. Speaker, with regard to the security changes that we have witnessed over the last number of months, one thing I do know is I am very opinionated member of Parliament, which is a fair comment that members may agree with, but the other thing is that I am not a security expert.

I depend on security experts and individuals who have a far better understanding of how we can protect the public and elected officials in Parliament from potential threats. Those decisions are best made by security personnel. There are institutions such as the Board of Internal Economy and others that ultimately provide guidance, in co-operation, I suspect, with the Speaker's office, and I have faith in that system. I am very encouraged to see security on the floor of the House.

From what I have witnessed, the former security guards are now on the floor of the House of Commons doing the security checks and so forth, which is great. However, that is a little off topic. My primary concern with respect to state visits is ensuring they do not impinge in any way or fashion on a member's ability to fulfill his or her roles and responsibilities in the House, which includes everything from votes to debates on laws and budgets, or to have access to committees or the House of Commons if they want to listen to what is taking place and potentially make an intervention of some fashion.

Those concerns really need to be taken into consideration when we talk about state visits.

(1105) Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate something that was just mentioned by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster and ask my friend from Winnipeg North about this. There have been dramatic changes in the security here that I believe do infringe on fundamental constitutional principles of the supremacy of Parliament, the role of the executive and the differences in how parliamentary security should be handled. There was a snap motion on Friday, February 6. I was fortunate to be able to change my plans and be here for the whole debate.

We did not hear witnesses or experts before it was pushed through the House of Commons to would change our security measures to a different parliamentary precinct approach, which puts the RCMP in charge. Again, this is no disrespect to the RCMP, but I am very concerned about the primacy and supremacy of Parliament and the constitutional role of the House of Commons security, not to mention the fact that the security officers were the ones who most bravely and unarmed did the best job protecting us on October 22.

Regardless of what may have been the executive's intention, many of those House of Commons security guards now feel demoted. Now we have Bill C-59 , bringing with it Division 10 of

part 3, pages 73 to 97, which is all about creating a parliamentary protective service in an omnibus fashion. Again, we will not have enough time to study it and it requires the director of parliamentary protective service to be a current standing member of the RCMP always by law. Does my friend from Winnipeg North think we are rushing into these changes without adequate study or review and could this motion on privilege give PROC a better chance to dig into these issues? Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : Mr. Speaker, first, I will address the issue of Bill C-59 .

Over the last number of years, since the majority Conservative government, we have seen a different attitude toward the way legislation is passed. The best example of that would be the forced time allocation that is put on the House for virtually all legislation, which prevents the type of dialogue that is important between members of Parliament. The leader of the Green Party asked if we would have adequate debate on Bill C-59, which is a very important issue. I suspect the type of debate we will likely have on the bill will be very similar to the type of debate we have had on a number of pieces of legislation.

However, in regard to that specific aspect of the legislation, it behooves us to take into consideration what we are told by the security experts, the people who truly understand the potential of terrorism. We need to recognize that the Parliament building is a very high target area. Given the symbolism and national importance of the precinct, we need to be very careful in dealing with the issue of security. That is why I have personally entrusted the security professionals to provide us the best advice. At the same time, I am a parliamentarian first and foremost.

I appreciate the importance of the privileges we have here. I will not support things that will take that away. Finally, on the first part of her question, I believe some discussion took place prior to the Friday to which she referred. I do not know to what degree. Perhaps she was not incorporated into that dialogue, but there was definitely a sense of what was taking place among the three major political parties. I do not know the details in terms of the independents.

(1110) Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on a few of the comments I have heard. The first comment I heard, and quite frankly disagree with, was that somehow instead of visiting dignitaries coming to the House of Commons they should go to Rideau Hall and meet with the Governor General. Those comments came from a party that does not believe in the Governor General or the monarchy.

I have my own particular opinion on that item, but I would like to hear the hon. member reply to that. The other issue is that very real question about security and the rights and privileges of members of Parliament and the Senate, and the responsibility of security to try to balance that. I expect there will be some slippage and some mistakes made along the way, but that is why we as parliamentarians need to involve ourselves in this ongoing process, because it is a new world we live in since October. We have to find the proper balance.

However, to achieve that proper balance, it is also incumbent upon members of Parliament and Senators to respect the security officials here who may not know each of us by name, or may not remember our faces. We need to carry either our pin or an ID. I would like to hear his opinion on that. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : First, Mr. Speaker, on the issue of the state visits, it was wonderful, for example, when the President of France and the President of Ukraine addressed the House of Commons. It was a privilege. It makes us reflect on former Prime Minister Churchill.

There is an opportunity for all members of Parliament and the public to benefit in certain situations. I would have loved to have seen President Aquino from the Philippines address members of the House. Those are wonderful, golden opportunities to bridge relationships between countries. However, the issue of state visits needs to be looked at by the PROC committee, and how that could potentially interfere with the primary role that all of us have as members of Parliament. I believe there is merit for that issue.

The so-called red carpet treatment for a president or someone of similar stature who addresses the House has great value to it. However, we do have Rideau Hall. The Governor General does play a very important role in the makeup of state visits. I think it goes without saying that there is a responsibility for members, but there is also responsibility for the security personnel to know who are the members of Parliament. On occasion I was asked if I have I.D. I had no problem in showing it. However, the issue is if I did not have I.D., I would like to think I still would have been given access.

To this date, I believe I would have, but I am not 100% certain of it. That no doubt causes some concern, however. This is one reason why our security personnel have a booklet that lists all the MPs. It might cause a 60 second delay, potentially, if security has to match a face. Is it reasonable for us to expect that all security forces would recognize what will be 338 members of Parliament? I do not think so. It is definitely something about which we could talk.

(1115) Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to join this debate. I do not think I will be using the full 20 minutes that is available, but I did want to participate in what I think is an important debate about the future of this place.

I will not go into the detail of the specifics of the matter that brought the ruling to the House, because it was obviously found to be sufficient to raise the question of privilege, but it is a good occasion for the committee to have a look at some of the questions that have arisen, some of them, frankly, without much contemplation, without much debate, without much public discussion in terms of the changes that may be taking place in the security arrangements for the House of Commons and the parliamentary precinct as a whole. Obviously there are some lessons to be learned from what happened last October.

I am afraid we have not even seen any reports as to what exactly happened last October. There is a bit of a gap here. Decisions seem to have been made about what we should do next without having a report on exactly what went wrong last October. It obviously was a significant shock to us all to have to encounter this, obviously without proper security in place because if there had been proper security in place, that individual would not have got inside this building.

Clearly mistakes were made, but nobody seems to be in a position to tell the public exactly what happened and make a report that we could have a look at. Without that, it is very difficult to draw conclusions about what should happen, but one thing that needs to be looked at, and I am hoping this is an opportunity for the committee to look at it, is this whole question of who is in charge, ultimately, of the parliamentary precinct. Under our system, and it was always this way, it was supposed to be the Speaker.

The Speaker is the guardian of the rights and privileges of members of Parliament, and they obviously include the personal security of members and staff of the parliamentary precinct. It disturbs me to hear, even in dealing with a debate about this matter, that we have the government House leader giving information received from the Minister of Public Safety who receives information from someone from the RCMP who says they reviewed security tapes. Where is the Speaker in all of this? Where is the role of the Speaker in terms of being in charge of the parliamentary precinct, as opposed to the government?

We live in a parliamentary democracy and there is an executive and the houses of Parliament, but I think we have a problem if there is an overlap, if there is an uncertainty of who is reporting to whom.

Ultimately, I hope the committee looks into this, and it may require more than just a simple looking at it, and perhaps the committee would have some recommendations that there be further work done on this, that there be further study, as someone pointed out earlier, looking at first principles as to how a parliamentary democracy protects itself and how it operates within the parliamentary precinct, because it is not simply a matter of getting to the House. People were talking about getting to this House for a vote, but it is not simply a matter of that.

The parliamentary precinct includes the offices of members of Parliament. Some are in this building and some are somewhere else. Mine happens to be in this building, so if I am denied access to this building temporarily or for an event, then I am denied the ability to go to my office to use the tools of the office to perform my duties as a member of Parliament. The parliamentary precinct exists in other parts of the Hill, but they are all under the ultimate control of the Speaker. The Sergeant-at-Arms reports to the Speaker.

So if we have an external police force, which is the national police force, playing a role on security other than advisory, then the question becomes to whom does it report. This committee really should be looking at that. It is one thing to say that the RCMP can be in charge. I was not here for that debate, and frankly, I do not agree with it. I think it is something that should be through the Speaker.

If the expertise resides in the RCMP, then obviously there is a case for secondment to the parliamentary security service, either for advice or command and control functions in particular circumstances or emergencies or in general to deal with emergencies.

(1120) However, in terms of who has the expertise, the tradition, the understanding, the institutional memory, and the knowledge, that resides in the Speaker's office, as does the role of the keeping the primacy of Parliament in the place that it should be under our Constitution. If we start with the principle that the parliamentary precinct should be under the control of the Speaker on behalf of all members of Parliament, then the question of what the buildings are used for can be answered by the Speaker with whatever advice he or she would get from Parliament itself. We have heard about the heads of state.

I think it is a perfect part of this tradition, which we have here, that leaders of other governments address the House, including heads of state, such as the President of the United States, who has addressed the House. That person is both the head of state and the head of government. That is not our tradition. The Governor General is the head of state, symbolically, on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen, and Her Majesty the Queen is the head of state. Rideau Hall is the residence of the head of state of Canada.

When foreign dignitaries come to pay their respects on a visit to Canada, that has traditionally been the place where they go. If they are speaking to Parliament, that is a different matter, but we see the parliamentary buildings being used as a backdrop for a press conference, if we want to call it that, a photo op, or a welcoming ceremony for a foreign head of state who is not speaking to Parliament. Parliament has no role whatsoever. Parliament is not involved in it.

It is basically being used as a venue for a public meeting and public statements by a foreign dignitary, whether it be a head of state, as in the case of the President of the Philippines, or a prime minister coming here. If the House is not in session, there are a lot fewer problems, because we do not have the House of Commons or the Senate in session. However, these are questions that really are a part of what is going on here. It has been questioned whether or not the people who are engaged in security know who the members of Parliament are. The question becomes who they are here to protect.

They are here to protect the members of Parliament, the senators, and the staff who work here. It seems to me that there is an obligation that the people who are doing the protecting should have some knowledge of who they are protecting. I was here that day, walking up to the Parliament building to my office, which happens to be in this building. There was nobody on the roads of Parliament. I was crossing from one part of the road to the other, and I was ordered to get off of the road. I looked around, and I did not see any cars, but I was told to get off of the road. Why would I get off of the road?

I was crossing the road to get to my office. Again, there was no distinction being made as to who is who, who is what, who is coming, who is a tourist, who is a visitor, who is here on business, and who is wandering around. That seems to be wrong. I am not blaming any individual who may have been giving instructions, if we want to call them that. They sounded like orders to me. I am not blaming any individual for doing that, but it is clear that we have a systemic problem here if we have not figured that out.

The people who are here are doing the best they can, but they need to have proper rules, proper protocols, and proper understanding of their role, the role of members of Parliament, and how this all fits together. This is not simply a crowd control issue. It is an issue of democracy and how we have a democracy when members of Parliament and their staff who are going about their business, providing the mechanism of democracy in this country, are not able to do that.

On the one hand, the government plays a role in the House, but when the Prime Minister is meeting foreign heads of state, that is not a parliamentary function, unless they are being brought into Parliament, as we had when President Poroshenko came here to Parliament. He was greeted at a reception for members and other guests, and he presented a speech in Parliament. That is a parliamentary occasion, and it is one that we welcome and appreciate. We understand the value of it as part of the traditions of the House.

I think the earliest one, or the earliest one most people remember or remember hearing about, is the visit of Winston Churchill during the Second World War.

(1125) I think that is something we recognize as part of the traditions of this House and part of the important role that this House plays in the life of the nation and our relationships with other countries. That, obviously, has to continue. However, to get back to the question before us, whether this matter should go to the committee—that is the motion before us, should the matter go to the committee for discussion, for recommendations, for debate, for recognizing the depth of the issue and coming up with some solutions—I think that is the proper place for it.

We would all benefit from an in-depth look at these questions, perhaps, with a calling of experts, getting people to come before the committee to talk about these traditions, to talk about how this could be done, and to perhaps even raise questions as to whether, or how, one could still have a system with the Speakers of the House of Commons and the Senate in charge. That has to be the top of the pyramid, because the Speakers of the House of Commons and the Senate actually do act on behalf of all of us as parliamentarians in maintaining those traditions and ensuring that the democratic traditions prevail.

We saw that in the last Parliament when Speaker Milliken made a ruling that, in fact, the Parliament was supreme over the executive, in terms of getting information. We were talking about the Afghan detainee documents and, Mr. Speaker, you yourself were part of that debate and discussion. It is one of the most important and significant rulings in any parliamentary democracy in the commonwealth—the kind of democracy we have—because it said that, ultimately, it is the House of Commons that decides what information of the government, of the state, it is entitled to.

That is a significant ruling, indeed, but it also underscores the importance of this institution being in charge of its own affairs—and the security of its members and the operations of the parliamentary precinct, are part of that. We have to find a way to ensure that whomever is in charge of the security services of the houses of Parliament actually answers to the Speaker, not to a minister of the Crown. This is what we have now. The RCMP, God bless them, are the national police force and they have an important function to play, but to whom do they report? They do not report to Parliament.

The head of the RCMP is not an officer of Parliament. There is no parliamentary oversight of the RCMP. It reports to the Minister of Public Safety , who reports to the Prime Minister . That is not the way a House of Parliament is supposed to operate. We have 1,000 years or more of tradition behind getting to the point where we are now. We should not be taking steps backwards. If we have a problem that needs to be solved, we should solve it consistent with our Constitution and our constitutional traditions. This is an extremely important question.

It is not simply whether somebody can get here 50 seconds or 30 seconds or a minute and a half late, potentially missing a vote in the House. That is just the context for bringing this forward. The reality is that this is a most significant question that requires a thoughtful, thorough, and comprehensive study and, hopefully, a report back to this House that would solve some of the questions we have been discussing here and that have been put forth. That is really the point I rose to make. I want to make that point because I think it is of very high importance.

I would be happy to respond to any questions or comments my colleagues have. I do not think this is a partisan issue. I think this is an important constitutional issue about the future of parliamentary democracy in Canada.

(1130) Mr. Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's comments very carefully and with great interest. One of the things that struck me when I first entered this precinct was how swiftly the House of Commons guards knew who we were. We walked in the door, and they greeted us with “thank you” or “good morning”, and I was impressed with that. It created a sense of safety, their knowing who I was and my learning who they were.

It strikes me as problematic when we rush into or are pushed into a situation where we have people who are there to look out for our welfare, and I thank them for that, but do not know who we are. It seems to me that the key to any successful security issue is everyone knowing who the players are and what their roles are. It is something that is sorely lacking in this situation because of how quickly, and without much forethought, we were pushed into this situation. I wonder if my colleague would like to comment on that. Mr. Jack Harris : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for bringing that up.

I was first elected in July 1987, and I remember distinctly coming to this House, as the House was in session during the summer, after whatever period we had to wait before being officially declared elected. I came here for a visit to get orientation. I came up to the front doors of the Peace Tower and walked up the steps inside to the counter expecting to ask directions to where I had to go on the sixth floor somewhere. I came up to the counter, and the constable behind the counter said, “Good morning, Mr. Harris”. I know I am using my name, but that is what he said. I was shocked.

I asked him how he knew who I was. His response was, “That is our job, sir”. That was my first encounter coming to this building as a member of Parliament in 1987. As you pointed out, that was something that made me feel that these were the people who were here to know who we were. Their role as constables and security guards, as you pointed out, was to give us a sense of security. The Deputy Speaker : I would point out for the member for St. John's East that his comments are to come to me, and it is in fact improper to use his own name. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg North. Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, is it the member's expectation that to provide security the security officers, whether it is within the Parliament Buildings or on the grounds of the Parliament Buildings, should know 338 members of Parliament, which will be the number come fall? The member also made reference to staff. It goes beyond members of Parliament, even though the issue of privilege to the chamber is limited to MPs, from what I understand. I could be wrong about that, and the member can correct me.

Does the member believe that every security officer in the precinct should be able to have name-face recognition of all members of Parliament? How important is that to him? Mr. Jack Harris : Mr. Speaker, first I would say to the hon. member that when this incident I referred to took place in 1987, there were 295 members of Parliament. There will be 338 members come the fall. I do not know if the member speaks to the pages, but they seem to know everyone by name. That is part of their job. They learn that in the orientation session one or two weeks before they start.

The constables representing the House know who everyone is. The question is whether it is necessary for security. I do not know. The pins are security pins. They have numbers on the back. I have only once had someone say, when I showed my pin, that he needed to see my ID, even though that person should have had access to a book with all the names in it. The person apologized and said he was new here and had come just the previous week. That is one of the issues we have with the rotation in and out for a one-week period or a two-week period of various security officials on the Hill. That is a problem.

If they are only here for one or two weeks, it is a problem. They need to know this place and who they are here to secure. That is a security question. However, the answer is that the more they know, the better job they can do and the more secure the place they are guarding is, particularly if they are trying to balance access to the House and access by the public as well. (1135) [ Translation ] Mr. Marc-André Morin (Laurentides—Labelle, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the guards stationed up there in the gallery can recognize anyone in the House. That is how safe I feel.

If chaos were to break out, I am sure that they would recognize me and any of my colleagues no matter the circumstances. However, there is more to it than that. The new mentality fostered by the Conservatives challenges the concept of separation of powers. I would like my colleague to tell us a bit about that. [ English ] Mr. Jack Harris : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member hit on an essential point. The separation of powers is extremely important in our Constitution, and frankly, to our freedom. Our freedom as a nation depends on the separation of powers between the executive branch and the parliamentary branch.

We do not have that as stringently as they do, for example, in a republican system like in United States, where they have the executive in the White House, with the cabinet chosen by him and ratified by parliament, and then they have Congress and the Supreme Court. There is a structural separation of powers. We have a different system, in some ways better, because members of the executive sit over here in the front row or second row, or wherever, on the other side, and they are responsible and accountable to Parliament directly.

We have a different system, but because there is this intimacy, so to speak, between the executive and the legislative branch, it is all the more important to make sure that there are bright black lines between the executive authority and the House of Commons, or the legislative branch. We should, in this case, examine that to see where those bright black lines need to be. [ Translation ] Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about a number of things. My office is on the ninth floor of the Confederation Building. It is the last one, right at the end.

When there is a 15-minute bell and I make my way up the road, it is very important that I not be delayed by even a fraction of a second by bollards that are not operating properly. That would prevent me from arriving in time for the vote. We have a majority government now, but in the past, with minority governments in power, such situations could cause major problems. I feel that this is about privilege and rights. When I arrived here in 2011, the pages who welcomed me at the main entrance greeted me by name. They had not been here long, but they knew our names.

I think that the security guards who have been here longer should know our names. Will the member support us and help us ensure that our access to the Hill remains a basic privilege for all MPs? [ English ] Mr. Jack Harris : Mr. Speaker, to answer the last question first, clearly that is what New Democrats want the committee to look at. What are the first principles on access to the precinct, whether it be to the House for a vote, as was pointed out, or to one's office, whether it be in the Confederation Building or here? These are fundamental to the operation of our legislative system.

There is even the question of buses. If we cut down the number of buses, it is hard to get from one place to another in the middle of winter, because sleet, a storm, or whatever is going on. That impedes access too. Maybe the rules need to be adjusted to ensure that members are able to come for a vote. Yes, the fundamental question has to be there. This is an extremely important question of privilege and is a real opportunity and a timely opportunity for Parliament to engage with this question.

New Democrats look to the committee to provide some leadership and hear from anyone in Parliament who wants to make representations as well as experts and those who know the traditions of Parliament.

(1140) Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I also, with my friend from St. John's East , do not intend to use the full 20 minutes. We have been talking in this place this morning about parliamentary privilege and its roots in our Constitution. I just want to review some of them.

I want to start by saying that I appreciate the Speaker's ruling of a prima facie finding of a breach of parliamentary privilege in the delays that occurred and in the indiscriminatory way pedestrian travel and vehicular travel was stopped by the RCMP without regard to whether they were stopping members of Parliament, who have a specific privilege to access Parliament Hill, tourists, or anyone else. We have already had some very good points made by other members. I will just touch on them briefly.

The House of Commons security officers and the Senate security officers know on sight who is a member of Parliament, who belongs here, and who might be a stranger of whom they should take some note or be concerned about. In an event such as October 22, and let us hope such an event never occurs again, I certainly would have a great deal more confidence in the House of Commons security folks and officers because they actually know which person in the room is a member of Parliament and which person is someone they have never seen before.

Every day, as I approach the House of Commons, and it is not every day I take a taxi, but when I do I encounter obviously lovely young people working in the RCMP who do not know if I am here to clean the floors in the building or wait on tables in the dining room or if I might in fact be a member of Parliament. I feel a lot more confident in the House of Commons security system, and I have a lot of misgivings about the decisions that were made in the rushed-through debate that took place here on February 6.

I also should note again that Bill C-59 would take that rushed debate, in an omnibus fashion, and put in charge of security in the House of Commons, for the first time in our entire history, an RCMP officer and not someone who, as my friend from St. John's East quite properly pointed out, should in fact, and historically always did, report to the Speaker. When we talk about these privileges, the privilege that exists in the House of Commons, it has its roots in the

preamble of the Constitution Act of 1867, which calls for a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom. Parliamentary privilege was partially codified in 1689 in the U.K. Bill of Rights, in

article 9, in the first act of William and Mary, which has constitutional force in Canada. The freedom of speech that is referred to in that

section was asserted at least as early as 1523, so when we stand in this place and say that parliamentary privilege means something and has a long-standing tradition, we do not mean the last couple of years or the last couple of decades. We mean since 1867. We are talking about historical, rooted parliamentary privilege that goes back to 1523. Prior to our own confederation, and as to the specific grant from the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the common law principle already well established that privileges were not just incidental to a legislature. They were deemed to exist.

In fact, parliamentary privilege today carries the same constitutional weight as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have had some litigation and court actions that have further established and ferreted out the questions. If an event occurs in the House of Commons, it is not the same as saying that we as members of Parliament have some sort of diplomatic immunity, that if one were to assault another, there are no laws to cover this. We are not a law unto ourselves. We are in Parliament.

That was established in the Vaid decision, which dealt with the human rights concern of a former employee of the Speaker about whether discrimination had taken place. Parliamentary privilege does not extend so far as to say that we cannot exert rights we have under other laws in this place. I did find it interesting, in going through some research, this finding of one of the great constitutional law experts of this place, Joseph Maingot, who looked back to when parliamentary privilege was asserted in terms of our security.

This example comes from 1866, when there was a physical altercation between an assistant librarian and a member of Parliament. I cannot imagine such a thing happening today, but in any case, the member of Parliament raised it in the House, and the Speaker's remarks make it very clear what the role of the Speaker is in security in this place.

(1145) I will cite from the book, Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , found at page 140, citing the journal of the province of Canada, from August 1, 1866 in which the Speaker said: ...it is a power incidental to the constitution of this House to preserve peace and order within the precincts and protect Members of it from insults and assault. This power is necessary not only to insure the freedom of action of Members, but that freedom of discussion which is one of their fundamental rights. I would point out, once again, that it is not just votes, and I want to underscore this point.

According to the most early finding of parliamentary privilege by a Canadian Speaker, it is very clear that freedom of discussion is one of our fundamental rights. Therefore, we should not be prevented, even by seconds, from taking up a spot in a speaking order. We all know as parliamentarians how easily one can find an opportunity for speaking when we come to this place to enter into debate, such as this morning.

We did not know when we showed up this morning from the government orders that the Speaker would have ready for us a finding on questions of privilege raised earlier by members of the NDP, but we adjust ourselves. We come here and as parliamentarians, we passionately embrace the principles of this place and respect the supremacy of Parliament at all times. However, one of our most fundamental privileges and rights as parliamentarians is freedom of discussion. If we are impeded in that, then our rights are infringed and democracy is violated. I cited a finding from 1866.

We know that in the past number of years, the privileges and elections committee of the Canadian House of Commons has always ruled that police forces coming onto the precinct on official business require the permission of the Speaker. Not to belabour the point, and I think everyone in this House knows, but the exclusive privilege of the House has been to regulate proceedings within its own walls, which is a fundamental principle that must be respected.

However, we are making changes, clearly from the rushed debate and subsequent vote of early February to the now rushed omnibus Bill C-59 with changes to create security for the parliamentary precinct with a director who shall always be under law a member of the RCMP, who would therefore not be reporting to the Speaker. These are not arcane changes. These are not small matters if we are to think forward to another era. I agree with my friends who have earlier pointed out that this is not a partisan matter. This is a question of Constitution.

For example, another executive could be composed of a party that does not even exist at this point in our parliamentary discourse and no one should take offence. What if we had a prime minister someday who decided that it would be convenient to stop members of opposition parties from getting to the House for votes and was able to ask the RCMP to make it so? There is a fundamental principle of democracy that requires that the privilege of Parliament and the protection of our rights and privileges in this place is vested in the Speaker and never in a prime minister.

We are at the very moment going through a fundamental transition, which is a breach with all principles and all tradition going back more than 500 years, and we are doing it in a rushed fashion. This strikes me as wrong, prima facie. We have an opportunity today to see that this issue comes to crystallization in a couple of events that could be dismissed as minor. Mr. Speaker, I urge you and I urge all my colleagues in this place to find that the conflict of RCMP officers stopping members of Parliament from getting to Parliament Hill is not trivial.

It is the crystallization of a very dangerous change, which we will not adequately discuss in omnibus bill fashion, but which the PROC could look at and could call witnesses on. I urge members to vote to send this matter to PROC and to request, for instance, that we hear expert witnesses, including our former Sergeant-at-Arms, current ambassador to Ireland, Kevin Vickers. I would wish to hear his best advice.

I remember very clearly when we rushed through discussion on February 6, and when the opposition raised concerns that it was a mistake to consolidate security of the House of Commons and the parliamentary precinct overall into the RCMP's hands, without disrespect to that agency, but on constitutional grounds. The response from many members of the Conservative Party was well surely we can all agree. The Auditor General said some years ago, that we need to have a consolidation and better integration of security on Parliament Hill. I do not think anyone would disagree with that.

The question is, who gets to be in charge of that improved security?

(1150) Why not have the Speaker of the House and the Speaker of the Senate be in control, as they have always been, of a consolidated force where the Sergeant-at-Arms of this place is in charge not just of the physical building, but of the grounds? Why should we have a decision that overturns centuries of constitutional divisions that have a very real democratic purpose: where we meet with the privileges and protections of our rights, liberties and freedoms, that the protection of those rights and liberties and freedoms be vested in the Speaker and never in the executive branch. It is a fundamental question.

Now that we have the opportunity through what might be dismissed as minor incidents, I urge all members to find they give us the opportunity to have proper discussion, thorough review, to call the right witnesses and not allow Bill C-59 as an omnibus budget bill to blast through and create permanent changes, or at least changes until some future government can repeal them, and the dismantling of a system that has worked and served us very well. I want to close my remarks by thanking the House of Commons security officers and the Senate security officers.

These are the officers, particularly in the House of Commons on October 22, who risked their lives and did the most to protect us. Although as other members have noted we do not have reports from what happened on that day, we do know that the gunman was stopped at the door by an unarmed House security guard, Samearn Son. He wrestled with the gunman and stopped what could have been a much worse event by giving others the chance to prepare themselves. I mean no disrespect to the RCMP, but officers did not notice someone running by them with a gun.

When they saw a chauffeur being removed from a limousine and a hijacked vehicle moving up to Centre Block, it is hindsight to say why did they not put on their sirens, but we know there was no warning to our internal security force from our external security force. I want one more time before closing to say again how deeply all of us in this place are grateful to our former Sergeant-at-Arms and the entire security team in this place. [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her contribution to this debate.

A number of my colleagues raised the problem underlying both questions of privilege, which the Speaker ruled on this morning. The problem is that the government took control of the parliamentary precinct. This was raised by a number of my colleagues. When foreign heads of state come to visit, for example, the government seems to take Parliament, this building, for its office, but it is not. It is the House of the Canadian people. The House of Commons is in this building. It is the place where Canadians are represented and where they feel at home.

The government seems to have taken ownership of this place, and the situation is only getting worse. It is using this place as a backdrop for state visits, when we are first and foremost in Parliament, the seat of the legislative branch. The government sits before us and is accountable to parliamentarians every day. I would like my colleague to say a few words about the fact that the government is increasingly using Parliament as its very own office.

I would also like her to say a few words about the chain of command with regard to the orders given to the security officers, who on a number of occasions were ordered to block everyone, regardless of whether or not they were a member of Parliament. (1155) [ English ] Ms. Elizabeth May : Mr. Speaker, yes. This has been raised a bit in this debate, but I do think that it needs to be underscored.

We know through an access to information request, there was a point when the current Prime Minister was checking out the cost of taking the former U.S. embassy and converting it into a more imperial greeting centre for the Prime Minister to greet heads of government or heads of state coming to Canada. He did this because he apparently did not think that it was suitable for them be greeted at Rideau Hall. After all, the Governor General represents the head of state for Canada, who is Her Majesty the Queen, and not the Prime Minister.

As this plan to convert the former U.S. embassy into a greeting hall for foreign dignitaries was uncovered, plans were dropped. My view is that the Prime Minister's Office decided that it would be a better idea to hijack Parliament Hill and the House of Commons. They could put red carpets up and down, they could put flags up, and they could use it as a photo op backdrop. We all agree, as parliamentarians, that when a head of state or head of government is visiting to give a speech in this place, that is a very different matter. However, I will never forget when Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel was visiting.

He did not address the House of Commons, but there were tanks outside on both sides and Parliament Hill was brought to a standstill. We need to get a proper balance. I am not saying that we can never use Parliament Hill when greeting foreign dignitaries, but that is not its purpose, and that is where we are going off the rails here in terms of understanding. We have a constitutional monarchy. We have a Westminster parliamentary democracy. We do not elect prime ministers to be presidents.

We are equal as MPs in this place, and there is a very fundamental principle of supremacy of Parliament which, in many dangerous ways, is being chiselled away. Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. I am a little bit uncomfortable with the way that she interpreted what happened on the day of the attack on Parliament Hill. I was there, and I am very proud that an unarmed security officer wrestled with the gunman.

However, the inference that I took from that was that it was the good work of the Senate and House of Commons security, as opposed to the RCMP. I do not think that that is a fair statement. I think that the idea that there are two separate levels of security within one building is an absurd position. I was one of the MPs who were mistakenly put out on the front of the House of Commons on the grounds, perhaps because we had a jurisdictional dispute between two groups within one building. We need to address these issues. We were not ready that day. That is understood. We could have been at a great deal more risk.

I certainly feel a great deal of comfort seeing the RCMP out at the front. I am not afraid that people are armed out at the front, because the protection of everybody who uses our public space has to be maintained. I am very proud of the work that the RCMP is doing out at the front in terms of allowing people to come up to demonstrate and allowing people to use that public space, but also making it safe.

The question that we have before us is not the internal versus the external, but how we ensure that in a new climate of security, we are maintaining the traditional rights of parliamentarians to access Parliament and do their job. That is the question here. My concern is that, more and more, Parliament is being used as a backdrop for official visits. This is nothing against official leaders coming.

Sometimes it is a great honour to have them, but if we are always seeing these photo ops that used to be done at Rideau Hall and we are being told that we have to wait to vote or wait to do our work because of dignitaries, that is a problem. I would just like to ask my hon. colleague to be a little bit more careful about how she portrays what happened that day, because all of us who were there remember the great risk that people put themselves at to keep us safe.

(1200) Ms. Elizabeth May : Mr. Speaker, I was here as well. I am not suggesting for a moment that the RCMP is not performing admirably, and I appreciate him calling me up short on that. As we know, we do not have a report. However, as I understand, and I have talked with virtually everybody to get different eyes on the scene, I think it is fair to say that we have seen a great increase in the number of RCMP vehicles in the last few years, circling the perimeter of the House of Commons. My own

interpretation, and my friend may disagree with me, is that people sitting in cars develop a vehicular awareness. They notice cars moving. That is why the RCMP sprung into action when the hon. leader of my friend's party went through a stop sign. When people are sitting in a vehicle, they notice vehicles. That is why the first time the RCMP noticed that the gunman was making his way to Parliament Hill was when the quick-thinking chauffeur of one of our parliamentary colleagues threw his car into reverse, banging the vehicle behind him.

It was a vehicular collision, basically a fender-bender, but there was enough noise and it was cars moving that got the attention of the RCMP to pursue that vehicle toward the front of the building. I appreciate my friend calling me up short. I do not mean any disrespect to the RCMP. However, my fundamental point, which should be underscored, is that it is the constitutional authority that matters.

It is a question of, yes, we should have consolidated security, we should not have separate forces that cannot talk to each other, but in that consolidated force, we must respect parliamentary traditions and our constitution, and ensure the consolidated force reports to the Speaker and never to a Prime Minister . [ Translation ] Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we cannot talk about this situation without talking about security, given that what caused the delay and the need for further controls was of course what happened on October 22.

In 1868, one of the Fathers of Confederation was assassinated on Sparks Street by a group of extremists who wanted to promote the cause of the Irish and reject the Crown. However, Parliament was not a bunker at the time, and members of Parliament were free to move about and do their jobs, as they should have been. The member for Sherbrooke clearly explained the division of powers between the legislature and the executive, as well as why we have this right and why we must preserve it. Would the member like to elaborate on that? Ms. Elizabeth May : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

Quite simply, it is important to preserve those privileges. We must protect our system and the principles of Parliament. The incidents raised by this question of privilege are important events that warrant a more in-depth examination. [ English ] The Deputy Speaker : Is the House ready for the question? Some hon. members: Question. The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No. The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay. The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it. And five or more members having risen: The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.

(1245) (The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:) (Division No. 401) YEAS Members Allen (Welland) Angus Atamanenko Aubin Ayala Bélanger Bellavance Bennett Benskin Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Boivin Borg Boulerice Boutin-Sweet Brahmi Brison Brosseau Byrne Caron Casey Cash Charlton Chicoine Chisholm Choquette Christopherson Cleary Comartin Côté Crowder Cuzner Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Day Dewar Dion Dionne Labelle Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dubourg Duncan (Etobicoke North) Dusseault Easter Eyking Foote Freeman Garneau Garrison Genest-Jourdain Giguère Godin Goodale Groguhé Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St.

John's East) Hassainia Hsu Hughes Jones Julian Kellway Lamoureux Lapointe Latendresse Laverdière LeBlanc (Beauséjour) LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leslie Liu MacAulay Mai Marston Martin Masse Mathyssen May McCallum McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Murray Nantel Nash Nicholls Papillon Péclet Perreault Pilon Plamondon Quach Rankin Ravignat Raynault Regan Saganash Sandhu Scarpaleggia Scott Sellah Sgro Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan St-Denis Stewart Stoffer Sullivan Toone Tremblay Trudeau Valeriote Vaughan -- 117 NAYS Members Ablonczy Adler Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Ambrose Anders Anderson Armstrong Ashfield Aspin Barlow Bateman Benoit Bergen Bernier Bezan Block Boughen Braid Breitkreuz Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Butt Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Carrie Chisu Chong Clarke Clement Crockatt Daniel Davidson Dechert Dreeshen Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Eglinski Falk Fantino Fast Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Galipeau Gallant Gill Glover Goguen Goldring Goodyear Gosal Gourde Grewal Harper Hawn Hayes Hiebert Hoback Holder James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St.

Margaret'

s) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kent Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lauzon Lebel Leef Leitch Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Maguire Mayes McColeman McLeod Menegakis Miller Moore (Fundy Royal) Norlock Obhrai O'Connor Oliver O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole Paradis Payne Perkins Poilievre Preston Raitt Rajotte Reid Rempel Richards Rickford Ritz Saxton Schellenberger Seeback Shea Shipley Shory Smith Sopuck Sorenson Strahl Sweet Tilson Toet Trottier Truppe Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan Wallace Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Yurdiga Zimmer -- 145 PAIRED Nil The Speaker : Motion negatived I declare the motion defeated.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders [ English ] Safe and Accountable Rail Act The House resumed from May 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-52,

An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act , be read the third time and passed. Bill C-52. Third reading Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I just wanted to double-check because I believe there was still some time on the clock for the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine . I thought I saw him here a moment ago, but if that is not the case, I am more than prepared to proceed. I rise to speak today on a bill that is important and has my support, but it opens up an area of public policy that really bears fuller examination.

This bill gives us a chance to discuss that. I speak of Bill C-52 , a bill for rail safety. As we all know, the issues of rail safety have become increasingly of concern to Canadians. The title of Bill C-52 is the safe and accountable rail act, but I think it needs to be acknowledged that, while the bill is certainly welcome and is a step in the right direction, it actually only speaks to the accountability side of safe and accountable.

It speaks to what we do in the event of accidents, such as who is responsible, how much insurance they must carry, and who can sue after the fact under the polluter pays principle. It does provide a number of important improvements, particularly for municipalities and others affected by rail accidents. It does create a minimum insurance requirement of $1 billion. These things are welcome. However, the issue of rail safety continues to be one of deep concern.

So many of the witnesses before committee spoke to the fact that Bill C-52 , while welcome, does not go nearly far enough, and the steps that have been taken so far by Transport Canada to improve rail safety in the wake of the disaster at Lac-Mégantic also are moving too slowly and, even if fully implemented, do not go far enough. I would like to take a moment to point out that, if we look at Lac-Mégantic as an example—and this was an example put forward by witnesses at committee—a $1 billion minimum insurance requirement for class 1 railways is something that was legislated mandate.

The class 1 railways have already been carrying it. Certainly we never wanted to see the Lac-Mégantic disaster. May we never again see a disaster of that scale. However, now that we know it is possible, it behooves us to put in place the insurance requirements that would meet a disaster of that scale, which would, according to witnesses, be closer to six times that amount, or $6 billion. Looking at the issue of rail safety, over the last number of years we have had what I would almost put forward as a perfect storm of changes in the private sector, in government, and in the types of goods we are shipping.

They come together in ways that leave us less safe than we have been before, even with the improvements Transport Canada and the minister have made. For instance, as recently as 2009, only 500 cars a year were carrying highly flammable fossil fuels, the flammable crudes that take up most of our discussion these days. We know the number has gone up in the last two years, but in 2013 we were up to 160,000 car loads. This is a phenomenal increase in hazardous goods moving on our rails, and that leaves out other types of hazardous goods, whether chlorine or other hazardous substances.

The Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs took this statistic and converted it into millions of barrels and said that, as of now, we have a million barrels of crude oil, flammable class 3 liquids, per day moving on our rails. It also pointed out that in 2013, the last year for which I have statistics, which I found through the witnesses, there were 144 accidents that involved dangerous goods, 7 of which resulted in dangerous goods being released. We have seen steps taken. I referred to them briefly before.

The transportation safety boards in Canada and the U.S. make findings about safety but do not have the regulatory power to implement them.

(1250) The transportation safety boards on both sides of our border found some time ago that the DOT-111 railcars constituted an unsafe way to transport such hazardous and flammable materials. We have taken some steps, as has the U.S., but there is a long lead time for the implementation, so now we are taking class 1232 trains and retrofitting them for crude oil. That must be done by 2020 and for less flammable materials by 2025.

Still, until 2017—so we have 2 more years to go—the unsafe DOT-111 cars will still be rolling through our communities; 80,000 DOT-111 railcars will be still in service in the U.S. and Canada until 2017. Why did I speak of the trends? We have essentially less safety and more hazardous goods. The rail industry, in theory, whether moving passengers or goods, is one of the safest and most environmentally appropriate way to move people and goods.

This needs to be reiterated because it is an essential part of our infrastructure, and one of our arguments as Greens is that it is an essential part of our infrastructure that we have been ignoring too long. We need to upgrade in the passenger context, and we need to invest in more modern trains and better rail beds. We need to continually upgrade the access to passenger rail and invest in VIA Rail for Canadians from coast to coast—and ultimately to coast, at least insofar as the Hudson Bay train would get there.

Coast to coast to coast rail service makes sense, and modernizing it to bring it into the 21st century is an important investment for Canadians. It is an important part of our transportation infrastructure. In the case of goods travelling by rail compared to by truck, it is safer in terms of accidents on our highways and, in theory, it reduces greenhouse gases. It is by far the safest way to transport hazardous goods. The difficulty we have is what has been happening in practice.

Over the last decade or so—certainly not just in recent years—we saw a change through the smart regulatory regime; we have seen a change through private sector pressures to improve productivity; we have seen a change through government cutbacks; and ultimately we have greater risks because of the change in our industry. Let us look, in terms of reduced safety, at the first point I wanted to make. The freight industry in Canada is private sector,

whereas VIA Rail is a Crown corporation. We are now dealing with the pressure of for-profit companies, and one certainly understands their point of view, but as a result of their pressure to improve the profit bottom line, we heard from the rail sector labour force, and particularly from the unionized members and the union in that rail sector, of a continual cutback in engineers and onboard rail crews that has led to greater safety concerns. We have also seen a failure to pay sufficient attention to maintenance along tracks.

A number of the significant derailments that have occurred recently occurred because of failure to keep tracks and bridges operating properly. We even had a fatality because of the failure to keep a railway trestle in proper repair. Back in 2005, a CN train derailed at Wabamun Lake in Alberta and resulted in a substantial spill, in which CN Rail was ultimately fined $1.4 million, which was a very modest fine, given the scale of that spill. The inquiry into that found that the rails over which that train was travelling were worn out and they had not been kept in adequate repair.

That was certainly a significant event, but there were a number of derailments right after it in 2005. This started creating more concern about the use of rail for freight that extended right across Canada, asking what more we could do and what the Transportation Safety Board was doing to ensure rail safety. The second piece that made us less safe has been in the government decision to move to safety management systems. It is essentially a form of deregulation that came into effect some time ago.

(1255) I direct the House to a finding in a report released in 2007 by the Canada Safety Council. It reported that the system is one that: ...allows rail companies to regulate themselves, removing the federal government's ability to protect Canadians and their environment, and allowing the industry to hide critical safety information from the public. One would think that having gone to a system such as this, Transport Canada would have a supervisory authority to review these SMSs, or safety management systems, to ensure their adequacy. However, it does not appear that is the case.

The third part of the less safe system is cutbacks at Transport Canada. We now have fewer engineers than we used to have available in Transport Canada to do the work of reviewing rail safety. According to a number of media reports, Transport Canada currently has, and has had since 2009, 30 critical rail safety positions that have remained vacant. These are for engineers who could do such things as anticipate and organize the removal of DOT-111 cars from the tracks. Missing critical people in rail safety and critical people at Transport Canada who deal with hazardous goods is not a good sign to Canadians.

We saw budget cuts at Transport Canada in 2012 that seem to now put in stone the fact that these positions are not likely to be filled again. We have hazardous goods moving through communities, as the committee was reminded by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and citizen groups concerned with hazardous goods rolling through communities, yet we have not filled critical safety positions within Transport Canada. The third part relies on what is happening in the private sector and why we are seeing more and more freight, and particularly more and more dangerous freight, on our tracks.

I am a huge supporter of passenger rail, as members can probably tell by now from my speech. I have travelled Canada's rails, criss-crossing the country as often as I get the chance. Often, I have done it in the context of political campaigns and whistlestop tours, where it really matters to know that we are going to arrive at our destination some time near the scheduled time on the VIA Rail schedule. As anyone who pays attention to rail in Canada knows, VIA Rail has to rent the tracks from CN and other rail owners. VIA Rail is not in control of the switches or the red, yellow, and green lights.

In other words, passenger rail in Canada and on-time arrivals are virtually entirely hostage to freight. When we have increasingly long trains that can no longer pull over onto sidings and VIA Rail passenger rail that is short enough to stay on the sidings, VIA Rail passenger trains often have to wait for hours for the convenience of freight to go by. We have not given adequate concern or attention as Parliament or Transport Canada's regulators to the length of freight trains and the fact that they are often stacking cars, and then again to the kinds of material that they are shipping.

The horrors of Lac-Mégantic woke us up to what they are shipping. I do not think that any of us will ever forget the horror of the morning of July 5, 2013, of the disaster that killed 47 people. The Transportation Safety Board had already approved what looked like a perfectly satisfactory system of safety on the part of the Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway. It had provided its safety management system to Transport Canada, and it was entirely legal on July 5, 2013, for an engineer to leave an idling train above a community, having set hand brakes with the assumption that the air brakes would not fail.

The engineer actually set seven hand brakes when, in fact, the minimum number of hand brakes on the company chart was nine. The Transportation Safety Board has since found that nine hand brakes would not have held the train if the air brakes had failed. As we know, the disaster of Lac-Mégantic is one of a train barrelling into a community that lay entirely unaware of the disaster that was about to befall it.

Not only did the community not know that it was legal and that Transport Canada had approved a system that allowed an idling train to be left unattended with hand brakes on above a community, but no one really knew what kind of flammable and dangerous materials were on board, because it was reported as crude oil.

(1300) It was in fact Bakken shale, which is an entirely different chemical composition, and as we know, to our horror, it formed a fireball that destroyed much of that community, killed 47 people, and injured many more. As we stand here today on May 12, 2015, are we sure that such a disaster as Lac-Mégantic could not happen in another Canadian community? Despite all the safety measures I mentioned, and in the face of Bill C-52 , the safe and accountable rail act, we have to say no.

We know a lot more about Bakken shale, and there is a greater requirement that communities be notified if it is moving through the community, but Bakken shale is not the only unconventional oil. If we mix bitumen with diluent, it also becomes far more flammable than bitumen by itself. I should mention parenthetically, because I think it is of some interest to people, that if bitumen by itself is heated so that it can be put into a railcar without the presence of diluents, it is virtually not a dangerous material at all. It cannot spill and it