2015-02-06

Government Orders
Parliamentary Precinct SecurityHon. John Duncan (Minister of State and Chief Government Whip, CPC):  moved:
 Motion No. 14 
 That this House, following the terrorist attack of October 22, 2014, recognize the necessity of fully integrated security throughout the Parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill, as recommended by the Auditor General in his 2012 report and as exists in other peer legislatures; and call on the Speaker, in coordination with his counterpart in the Senate, to invite, without delay, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to lead operational security throughout the Parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill, while respecting the privileges, immunities and powers of the respective Houses, and ensuring the continued employment of our existing and respected Parliamentary Security staff. 
Mr. Speaker, I am a proud Canadian. I have always been a proud Canadian. My family are all proud Canadians, and everyone in the chamber and watching this debate is a proud Canadian. This is a good starting place.
Canada is a true symbol of democracy in the world today. We live in the best country in the world, and one thing that is valued greatly is that we are a safe country. That is the first duty of the federal government to maintain and enhance.
This government has become a global leader in upholding democratic values and protecting human rights. Under the leadership of our Prime Minister, Canada has gained prominence for our moral clarity in the universal fight against terror. Through its spirited initiatives, Canada's influence on the international stage has grown and matured immensely.
Parliament Hill is the most important symbol of Canadian democracy. We have an obligation to protect this symbolic institution and to ensure the safety of visitors, employees, and elected officials. It is imperative for security within Parliament Hill to be integrated and enhanced.
 We particularly owe a standard of care to Canadian visitors and international visitors to Parliament Hill. Public access must be maintained within a protective framework. Canadians cannot but be influenced by international events, and we then witnessed the event of October 20, with the murder of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, followed by the events of October 22 at the National War Memorial, with the killing of Corporal Nathan Cirillo and the subsequent attack on Parliament.
More recently, the terrorist attack at Charlie Hebdo headquarters in Paris has strongly reaffirmed our concerns that terrorism knows no boundaries and that in order to maintain our freedoms we must secure ourselves in the optimum way. 
The Auditor General's report, in 2012, indicated the need for an integrated parliamentary security force. While we believe that the ongoing unification of the House of Commons and Senate security services is a good first step, a fully integrated security force is also required.
On October 22, there were four distinct police security services, each with its own jurisdiction between the Parliament buildings and the National War Memorial. These were the House of Commons Security Services, the Senate Protective Service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the Ottawa Police Service. It is overdue that Parliament has an integrated security force to ensure seamless response to threats. 
Today's motion is an administrative starting point to create, under the operational command of the RCMP, a fully integrated parliamentary security force which will provide for one chain of command and one point of accountability. The RCMP has a national presence that has access to rapid response training, security assessments, and intelligence, which are all essential in meeting today's evolving threats. 
Today's motion calls upon the Speakers of the House and Senate to invite the RCMP to lead this operational security. I have confidence that the Speakers will ensure that this unified force will not alter or negatively impact the existing immunities and essential parliamentary privileges of members of Parliament. This enhanced security model will provide protection for visitors and parliamentarians, balanced with the goal of ensuring reasonable access to our Parliament for all Canadians. 
The Auditor General identified that it is necessary to balance the desired level of access with sufficient security to ensure that risks are mitigated. The security measures implemented by the new integrated security unit for the parliamentary precinct will have policy oversight from parliamentary authorities.
 It is the government's objective to advance the transition with all security stakeholders as soon as possible. A transition committee coordinated by the Speakers of both Houses will work with senior officials on a transition plan.
The House of Commons security force is a backbone of Parliament Hill. Their individual efforts and courage on October 22, 2014 are admired and respected to the highest degree, and we thank them.
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  That is not a way to thank them, though.
[Interjection]
John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, this is a serious subject, and I do not appreciate being heckled.
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  It is not heckling.
John Duncan:  Mr. Speaker, I call that heckling at a time like this.
The integration of House of Commons and Senate parliamentary security is a necessary element, which would build upon a strong tradition of ensuring that protection and security are carried out effectively and efficiently in the face of evolving threats.
All decisions related to the integrated security force would ensure continuous employment for current parliamentary security staff and be consistent with the existing collective agreements. Security staff serve a variety of important functions, which we expect will continue under the integrated security force. If there are any staff reductions that result, they would be done through natural attrition.
While there is a proud tradition and a proud culture in this institution and in our protective services, recent events can only lead us to conclude that an integrated security force is essential in our buildings and on the grounds.
Canadians have much to celebrate, including the upcoming 150th anniversary as a Confederation. We know we are able to compete at the highest level in every field field of human endeavour, so it is only right that we apply ourselves to implementing best practices to achieve a seamless and integrated security in this place.
We owe it to the family who is visiting from France. We owe it to the mother and child who are visiting from Vancouver. We owe it to our respected diplomatic guests who graciously attend our official events. We owe it to our esteemed security staff members who require a solid framework so they can do what they do best. We owe it to our parliamentary staff members. We also owe it to our elected officials who have taken an oath to protect the public interest.
Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the government whip provided any explanation or rationale for why the Conservatives want to make this change. We support integration, but not the way they want to do it. 
My colleague said that no positions will be cut and that people will keep their jobs, but in the same breath, he said that any staff reductions would be done through natural attrition. Why? Who will be replacing them? The RCMP? Nobody is answering those questions, and that has me very worried.
Before I give my presentation in a few minutes, I would like to ask a question.
Will they allow a free vote of all of their MPs?
[Interjection]
John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, this is a government-inspired initiative and an important measure that we wish to put into place. The transition plan will contain the details of how this would be achieved. The Speakers will be a very important part of that transition planning. They will lead that exercise.
Obviously, I have fully answered the question that has been asked of me. It is a government initiative and the government members will be supporting this initiative.
Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, I would like a clear answer to this because I am very concerned by this move. I wonder if the hon. member opposite would tell me if he is aware of the advice received from our former sergeant-at-arms, Kevin Vickers, on the subject of removing independent security with its allegiance to Parliament and not to government? 
This is both a constitutional question and a security question. I believe that Kevin Vickers would not stand for this.
[Interjection]
John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, there have been ongoing discussions. This motion did not derive out of thin air. There have been a lot of discussions up until now to get to where we are. I addressed the constitutional question in my speech. The question of the immunity and privileges of members of Parliament will remain unaltered.
This is a thoughtful exercise and one that follows a model that has already largely been adopted in Australia and the U.K., based on real threat assessments that they felt they needed to respond to. This is something that we cannot continue to believe will not be the situation here.
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the former sergeant-at-arms, Kevin Vickers, would never have stood for this. This does not come from the Speaker. According to The Globe and Mail, sources have said that this decision is being driven by the Prime Minister. This is a major override of the legislative principle of the separation of power that has existed since the beginning of Confederation.
We have had a statement as well from the president of the association that represents our brave security guards. The message stated that a possibility of this move by the government would be, “in the view of the association, an indefensible and dangerous interference of government into the independence of the legislative function, as well as a solid breach into one of the foundational pillars of our democratic system: the principle of separation of powers”.
 This came from our brave security guards themselves, who laid their lives on the line on October 22. The current government is giving them a slap in the face and is moving to demote them, after they showed such bravery and courage on October 22.
I would like the government whip to confirm that this comes from the Prime Minister's Office. Will he confirm it? Also, will he admit that this is a major interference in the separation of powers under which this Confederation has existed since 1867?
[Interjection]
John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, when people talk about separation of powers, they often reference the mother Parliament in the U.K. The U.K. has a unified security force, as do some other very important Commonwealth partners. Australia has a unified security force, which was put in place in 24 hours when officials realized that there was a real and present significant threat, and they worried about the details later.
I always have a difficult response when members of the opposition want to put words in the mouths of people who are not able to speak. Kevin Vickers was a non-partisan friend to all as the sergeant-at-arms in this place. We all respect him immensely. Many of us consider him a friend. I refuse to be baited by the opposition members, who wish to put words in his mouth that I know he would not say.
Finally, the politics being played here that have nothing to do with improving the security of this place are not contributing to this debate, and I hope the opposition members will back off their petty politics.
Mr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, all of us lived through the October incident. All of us watched the video afterward, because many of us were locked in rooms and felt that our lives were threatened and heard the gunfire that we thought was actually from multiple shooters coming after us. We found out that it was the brave people of both our own security force and the RCMP.
It is repugnant that the opposition members would imply that to try to enhance and make a force more effective by integrating it would in any way, shape, or form disparage those brave people who protected us on that day. I just want the chief government whip to confirm that as being exactly the case.
[Interjection]
John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for saying so eloquently what I should have said in response to the previous question.
We thank our security forces. The House of Commons force was very dutiful and did all the right things on October 22. We are not saying that one is better than the other. We are saying that what we need is seamless, integrated security. It is that simple. It has to be led by one entity. The entity best placed to do that is the entity with a national presence and with connections to rapid response training on a national level and to intelligence sources, and so on. That is why we are where we are.
Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I think what is being lost by the whip is something he actually said in his own speech, which is that we are the ones to be in charge of preserving the freedoms we have. The problem is that this process is devoid of the very words he speaks. We should be looking at this with sober eyes and not just ramming through a motion. We should be looking at what happened on October 22 and how to integrate it and have all the evidence brought forward. Unfortunately, and I say this with deep sincerity, the government is doing the top-down thing: no free vote, and putting forward a motion and then ridiculing any kind of critique.
I want to ask the whip how he can say, on the one hand, that he wants to preserve the freedoms of this place, and on the other hand say that there is no free vote. I do not understand that. I would ask him to explain how, on the one hand, he wants us as members of Parliament to preserve the security of this place, on which we agree, but then on the other hand say that there will be no free vote, that the government will whip everyone into shape and tell them what to think. How does he square that?
[Interjection]
John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, it has been over three months since the events of October 22. There has been a lot of debate and discussion. We have a government initiative. We hoped for opposition support. It may be an overreach on our part to assume that this would happen, but we certainly have caucus solidarity on this issue. 
[Interjection]
Hon. Mauril Bélanger: That is not true.
[Interjection]
Peter Julian: It is imposed.
[Interjection]
Mauril Bélanger: I know a couple of your members who do not agree.
[Interjection]
John Duncan: Opposition members would like to suggest that there is not caucus solidarity on the government side, Mr. Speaker. They are incorrect.
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that this is really a sad day for democracy, for government in general and for the decisions we make here.
I also want to make the official opposition's position on enhancing the safety of the thousands of Canadians who spend time here every day perfectly clear. It is very clear to us that this is a priority. We need better integration, better training, better equipment and more resources dedicated to our safety. That is very clear. 
The motion before us will not achieve that. This motion is nothing more than the government's attempt to take away the historic responsibility that the Speaker's office has under the Constitution to protect parliamentarians from the unilateral intrusion of government authority. I will not bore the House with the history of this practice, which dates back to the English civil war in the 17th century and which is the outcome of the evolution of our Constitution since 1867 even though that history can help us understand why our current system is the way it is. 
My arguments will focus on two points: first, how this motion will definitely make the thousands of Canadians who visit this place every day less safe; and second, why it is unconstitutional and unacceptable in this institution to proceed in this manner within our constitutional democracy. 
The fact that the government is using the power of its whip to try to take constitutional rights away from the Speaker and permanently hand control of security in this place over to its own security service is a direct attack on our traditions, our practices and our Constitution. This is an unprecedented attempt to control security in the only place where the government cannot control it: this Parliament. This once again demonstrates that this government, led by the Prime Minister, is obsessed with controlling everything.
I would like to quote a reference regarding the traditions and procedures of this House. In the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice by O'Brien and Bosc, the Speaker's role with regard to security is described on page 324. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, there was a moment when there were only two Conservative members in the House, and I wondered if we had quorum, but perhaps we do.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): There appears to be quorum in the chamber.
The hon. member for Hull-Aylmer.
[Interjection]
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I will start over to ensure that the Conservatives hear what I have to say. 
I will cite the reference on the traditions and procedures of the House, the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice by O'Brien and Bosc. The Speaker's role in matters of security is described on page 324:
 The right of each House of Parliament to regulate its own internal affairs also extends to the management of the premises “within the precinct and beyond the debating Chamber …”. As guardian of the rights and privileges of the House, the Speaker ensures that they are respected within and outside the House. Within the precinct, the Speaker oversees matters of security and policing. Security within the buildings occupied by Members and staff of the House is the responsibility of the Sergeant-at-Arms, who acts under the Speaker’s authority (The Senate maintains its own security force in buildings occupied by Senators and Senate staff.). For this purpose, the House maintains its own security service. Arrangements are in place whereby the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) is charged with security of the grounds outside the buildings. There are occasions when the House security staff request and receive assistance from outside police forces, whether the RCMP or the local police. It is also well established that outside police forces wishing to enter the parliamentary buildings must first obtain permission from the Speaker to do so, and that the authority to grant or withhold such permission rests with the Speaker, who exercises sole discretion in this regard. 
My first question regarding the motion is this: why does the government believe that the House of Commons security services and the role of the Speaker should suddenly be under the control of the RCMP and that the Speaker's authority to grant or refuse permission for the RCMP to enter this place should disappear?
The wording of the motion suggests that the terrible attack perpetrated by a disturbed individual on October 22, 2014, that resulted in the death of a Canadian corporal who was standing guard at at the National War Memorial justifies these changes. The motion alludes to the attack as a terrorist attack. However, this government and the RCMP have never been able to produce any evidence to prove that the October 22 attack was organized by a terrorist group or that the criminal responsible was associated with any terrorist group.
All we have is the slogan that the Prime Minister likes to repeat over and over again, even though it cannot be justified. In fact, the only evidence that the RCMP claimed was proof that the attack was motivated by terrorism—a video made by the gunman—was never made public. This does nothing to increase the public's confidence in how the RCMP is conducting this investigation.
Nonetheless, some facts about the events that occurred on that terrible day are now clear. On October 22, 2014, the RCMP had a number of officers on duty within the perimeter. For a variety of reasons, they were unable to keep the killer, who was openly carrying a gun, from crossing a busy street in downtown Ottawa, crossing the grounds of Parliament Hill and hijacking a car that he drove to the doors of the Centre Block. Those facts are clear.
There are a number of videos available to the public that show these events. Many Canadians have seen them. What is also clear is the heroic role that was played by the unarmed constables with the House of Commons security services throughout that terrible day. Constable Samearn Son, from our security service, was wounded by the killer when he intercepted him as he entered the building, and he alerted the other guards in the Hall of Honour. What is clear is that the men and women in the Parliament buildings that day, most of whom are members of the House of Commons security service, are the ones who stopped and eventually took down this armed man.
Kevin Vickers, the head of security, was given a lot of credit. He was completely deserving of that credit, not only because of his individual efforts but because of the performance of his devoted staff. Our security service is known for its excellent training and professionalism.
If find our government's response to this attack absolutely shocking. The government is going to give the RCMP, which failed in its duty that day, jurisdiction over the security force that managed to stop the attack, our House of Commons security service. 
The fact that the motion uses the October 22 attack as an excuse to give the RCMP more power is shameful. It is an insult to the brave men and women who protected us so well that day.
As I mentioned earlier, there is no doubt that security on the Hill needs to be better integrated and coordinated. Better communication, better equipment and better training are also needed. Our people need more resources, and I know that my colleagues on both sides of the House have already supported the idea of giving them more. The official opposition will also support the full integration of the House of Commons and Senate security services.
This motion would have us believe that the idea of having the RCMP take over the Parliament Hill security services was somehow suggested by the Auditor General in his 2012 report on the administration of the House of Commons.
I have read this report, and on the contrary, it clearly states that integrating the security services would significantly improve security on Parliament Hill. The Auditor General never said that the RCMP had to take control here. In my opinion, any reference to the Auditor General in this motion is incorrect and inappropriate.
In fact, this motion is not designed to improve security on Parliament Hill. Rather, it is designed to remove control from our Speaker and our security services over security in this precinct and to give that power to the RCMP, which is controlled by the government.
However, there is no indication that the Hill will be more secure if the RCMP takes control of all security services on Parliament Hill.
We all know that the RCMP is an excellent police force made up of brave women and men who do not hesitate to risk their lives every day to protect Canadians. We can never thank them enough for their service. Our heart breaks over the tragic number of RCMP officers who have lost their lives serving Canadians, whether it is in Mayerthorpe, Alberta, or in Moncton. However, the fact that they do a good job across Canada does not make them the better choice to protect Parliament Hill.
I believe that if we allow our independent security services to manage security on the Hill with more resources, the thousands of individuals who use this place—members of Parliament, senators, journalists, employees and visitors—will be safer. The members of our security services understand how this place works. They respect the needs and traditions of our parliamentary institutions. They know our faces and our jobs. They always do their job with diligence and pride. They know how to keep us safe as we carry out our daily duties, all the while ensuring that this magnificent place remains a place where Canadians can meet, celebrate, mourn or express their opinions.
The RCMP is a huge organization known for frequently relocating and transferring its members and, admittedly, for the difficulties that it has had to face following allegations of sexual harassment. It is accountable to a government that, in turn, is increasingly known for doing everything in its power to stifle dissent and punish its political enemies.
I see here an excellent institutional reason for this House to reject the possibility of having the RCMP oversee Parliament's security services.
We are the legislature. We have a certain number of constitutional roles. One of them is to let the Governor General decide who has the confidence of the House.
In this system, there is a convention that determines which party leader will be called on to form the government. It is for that reason that there is a separation between the executive branch of government, the legislative branch of Parliament and the judicial branch.
This motion seeks to extend executive authority over Parliament by ensuring that the security agency that controls everything on Parliament Hill is the government's security agency—the RCMP. It is not the role of the legislature to serve the government. This House serves Canadians, not the government. The intent of this motion is to place security for this place under the control and direct authority of the government police service—the RCMP. 
The role of the Speaker is to serve and protect all elected officials and the thousands of Canadians who come here, and not just to protect the Prime Minister and the government. I have no reason to believe that making the House of Commons security service a sub-section of the RCMP would improve security. I find it shocking that the Chief Government Whip is trying to adopt this measure now, when the process to integrate the House and the Senate security services is still under way. 
I also find it shocking that the government whip is telling his MPs how to vote when, by voting that way, they will be giving up their own rights. If the government really wanted to talk about this in terms of legality and security, it would authorize a free vote. Based on the answer I got this morning, it seems that will be impossible.
 That is why I am moving, seconded by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, an amendment to the motion that I believe would address my concerns: 
 That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after “That the House” and substituting the following: 
 “recognize the necessity of fully integrated security throughout the Parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill, as recommended by the Auditor General in his 2012 report and as exists in other peer legislatures; call on the Speaker, in coordination with his counterpart in the Senate, to prepare and execute, without delay, plans to fully integrate the work of all partners providing operational security throughout the Parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill , while respecting the privileges, immunities and powers of the respective Houses, including the ultimate authorities of the Speakers of the Senate and House of Commons over access and security of Parliament, and ensuring the continued employment of our existing and respected Parliamentary Security staff, whose exemplary work on October 22, 2014, very quickly ended a threat to the security of Parliament.” 

[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The amendment is in order. 
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster. 
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Hull—Aylmer for a very eloquent speech. What she has brought forward is an amendment that the government actually should have brought forward in the first place, if it were not trying, as many observers who understand the security situation on Parliament Hill have noted, to interfere and wreck that division of powers that have existed in Confederation since 1867. The government should have brought forward a motion that would read: “...call on the Speaker, in coordination with his counterpart in the Senate, to prepare and execute, without delay, plans to fully integrate the work of all partners providing operational security throughout the parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill while respecting the privileges, immunities and powers of the respective Houses, including the ultimate authorities of the speakers of the Senate and House of Commons over access and security of Parliament and ensuring the continued employment of our existing and respected parliamentary security staff.”
That would have been the motion brought forward if the government really intended to work with the opposition, rather than trying to interfere or attempting to lessen the very clear divisions of power that have existed since the beginning. 
Canadians will have some time to bring some pressure on Conservative MPs, who are being whipped right now not to vote for the NDP amendment. 
Does the member feel that Canadians believe that we need to have this separation of powers and that the brave work of our men and women on the parliamentary security precinct should be applauded, not treated the way the government is treating it today?
[Interjection]
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.
Indeed, Canadians believe it is very important for the House and the government, in this place and on Parliament Hill, to be respected as a whole and not treated as completely separate entities, which is what the government is currently trying to do. That is very unfortunate.
I would also like to address a point that was discussed. Once again, this failure to have a real discussion and use a collaborative approach for the good of the House and the good of Canadians everywhere, at home and abroad, shows a lack of respect towards all political parties.
Canadians should feel safe and should feel that the House is working for them and with them, and that it is not being controlled by another entity.
That is what is deplorable about this entire approach.
Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC): Mr. Speaker, obviously, what happened here on October 22 involved real bullets, live fire, and the safety of many lives in the House. 
I was pleased to hear that at least the member would agree that there is a need for an integrated force, that anyone trying to break through is not concerned whether he is in the House, out of the House, or coming up to the House. Therefore, would she agree with me that the action that needs to be taken is urgent and immediate? 
We had the Auditor General's report in 2012. Here we are in 2015 and no action has been taken. We had an incident occur some three or so months ago and no action has been taken. Would she agree that the need is urgent and immediate, and would she agree that the RCMP has the capacity and the ability to provide that kind of integrated force?
[Interjection]
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, yes, we fully agree with integration of the Senate and the House of Commons security, as well as making sure we have the RCMP protecting us outside the building, outside the House. We all agree with that. 
We agree as well on the urgency of the situation. There was discussion, and if this motion or a similar motion had been presented at the committee it would have ensured that we were all working together toward this objective. It would have been a lot easier. The trick in all of this is that the motion came to us with a part that had never been discussed. It was never part of the solution. That is what we cannot support. 
At the same time, when the member asks if the RCMP has the capacity, the RCMP has a mission and role that is completely different from what we are looking at today. The security people are informed and prepared for that part. We need to keep the independence of the Speaker here in this room. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Before I go to questions, I remind all hon. members to direct their comments to the Chair rather than directly to their colleagues.
The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, there has certainly been a great deal of good information put forward this morning. I want to make it really clear where the Green Party stands. 
We, like the official opposition, agree that we need a unified security force and that security must be beefed up. We have learned a lot of lessons. I agree with the official opposition and applaud members for again pointing out that it was not a terrorist attack, but an attack by tragically mentally ill, drunk, addicted individual. Thank goodness it was not a terrorist attack. It is something that has given us an opportunity to see where the holes in security are and where we can fix them.
However, the constitutional issue here is not a small one. Is my hon. colleague aware of the current position taken by Senator Campbell, a former RCMP officer himself, who has taken the view that this is in fact unconstitutional and would not survive a constitutional challenge?
[Interjection]
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, I will try to direct my comments to you when I speak. I know that you have reminded me to do so several times. 
At this point, I know that the Senate is in agreement with integration, but regarding the RCMP, I am not sure. We will make sure that we are all aware of that part of the issue. It is good news for us and the staff if they are saying exactly what we are saying. It shows that this is led by a person who wants something different from everyone else, who would like to see this discussed and presented in a way that responds to the role and mission of this government as a whole. 
Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I am absolutely confident in the capacity of the RCMP but that I also have confidence in the parliamentary police force. I state this for a particular reason. Each of us who comes here swears an oath to the Queen and, in essence, to the Governor General at the same time. Our responsibility is to protect this place and the authorities of this place. That separation from the executive branch of government is what we maintain. 
A government member stated a few moments ago that this has been neglected for a long time. I have been here nine years, as has this government, and it is the government that has neglected it. We do agree that there has to be an integrated service. We do agree with much that is here, but we have to keep it in the hands of the Speaker. 
That is a responsibility of each and every one of us. I want to remind hon. members that this is not a political question or party question. It is about the legitimacy of this very House.
[Interjection]
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague summed up the situation quite well.
The message we are tyring to get across is quite clear. It is a question of separating the responsibilities of each party and recognizing the House and Parliament accordingly, as well as the authority they have been given over the years. We must keep it that way through any integration.
As we have said many times, let us respect the role of the RCMP, let us respect the internal security part of its role, and let us respect the authority the House has been given to manage and direct this Parliament.
Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians look to us as parliamentarians to help ensure their health and security in their daily lives. It is our responsibility to put in place measures that protect Canadians.
Since the Centre Block of Parliament in which I stand today was constructed in 1916, there have been security incidents in and around Parliament. Thankfully, the consequences were always much less severe than they could have been.
Throughout the decades, Parliament has taken responsibility to adapt its security measures for the safety of everyone who has the pleasure of entering these walls. The tragic events of October 22 serve as stark reminder that some people still seek to cause harm for harm's sake.
 Luckily for the staff, visitors, and parliamentarians who were in the building that day, our loyal and brave security teams were able to successfully neutralize the threat. We can never be grateful enough for those who put themselves in the line of fire to help protect all of us.
I am proud of the openness of our Parliament. I am proud that more than 1.5 million people choose to visit the seat of Canada's democracy every year. I am proud that each year 300 demonstrations take place just outside these walls. Our ability to disagree with government decisions, to be allowed to publicly express this disagreement, and to be able to do so safely is fundamental to our right of free expression.
Our House of Commons committees had the pleasure of hearing from more than 3,700 witnesses in 2014. Our colleagues from the other place got to hear important testimony from more than 1,700 people in 2013. Add to this the 4,000 staff who work at all levels of our Parliament, and one realizes the magnitude of the responsibility that we all share to ensure their safety. That is why we support this motion. Whether a young Canadian is visiting Parliament for the first time, learning about the history of our country, or a minister of the crown is hosting a meeting, we must ensure that everyone is protected at all times and at all places under our control.
We are all grateful to the parliamentary security team who have protected Parliament. I think it is very important to make it clear to the people who have given years of service to the protection of all Canadians who come to Parliament that we wish nothing more than that they continue their admirable work they have always done. All of us encounter members of our security teams on a daily basis in Parliament. I know that close links and friendships have developed between many of my colleagues and the security staff.
 I believe it is important that this motion specifically mentions that we would be “ensuring the continued employment of our existing and respected Parliamentary Security staff.”
It is equally important that this motion asserts the respect of the privileges, immunities, and powers of both Houses of Parliament. I was happy to see the motion recognize both these issues.
If we return to the events of October 22, let us not forget the brave and rapid actions of all our security forces members who were in this very building, like Constable Son, who confronted a dangerous man and was injured while fulfilling his duty to protect others, and like all the security forces members who bravely charged down the Hall of Honour to put an end to the threat we all faced.
As times change, Parliament must adapt to offer the best protection possible to the people who enter its grounds. It is our responsibility to ensure that we do so efficiently, all the while respecting the people who will continue to protect this place for many years to come.
As members know, the Auditor General prepared a report that recommended an integrated security team back in 2012. It is the provisions of this report that are being respected to through the motion before us and through our position on it. 
Concerns have been raised with respect to the separation, and these are extremely valid concerns that are specifically addressed in the motion. What has to be paramount here is the safety and security of all people who enter this place. That safety and security is best served by an integrated force, which was recommended by the Office of the Auditor General in its 2012 report, and that is what the motion recommends
It is important to bear in mind that the motion is an invitation for the RCMP to take charge of this integrated force. All of the details will be worked out in the fullness of time, but the basic principles are set out that the assurance of continued employment for the valued members of the House of Commons security team will remain, and that is important. The distinction with privileges and immunities will also be maintained.
It is very important that politics not allow us to get ahead of ourselves in this discussion. This is a starting point, with general principles being set out, and that is the manner in which we should move forward
The Liberals will support the motion, and I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The Chair must interrupt the member for Charlottetown at this time. The time for government orders has expired, but the member will have 13 minutes remaining when this matter returns following question period.

Statements by Members
Canadian International AutoShowMr. John Carmichael (Don Valley West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to highlight an event taking place this coming week in Toronto, the Canadian International AutoShow. This show is the largest in Canada, with an attendance of some 300,000 people. For 10 days, individuals from across Canada and other countries will come to explore the latest trends and products from over 30 automotive brands.
The show is always the kick-start of the retail sales year, and I am thrilled to report that both 2013 and 2014 were record breaking years in Canada for Canadian auto sales, with over 1.8 million vehicles sold in Canada this year alone.
I wish our automotive manufacturers and their dealers the very best with this year's auto show. I also invite all members and all interested Canadians to come and attend the show at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, from February 13-22, to view the latest in car designs, models and technology.
There is something for everybody at this year's Canadian International AutoShow.
Surrey North EventsMr. Jasbir Sandhu (Surrey North, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise proudly today to acknowledge some of the amazing activities that are taking place in my community of Surrey North.
On February 21, I will be walking in the Coldest Night of the Year, hosted by the Surrey Urban Mission, to raise money for the hungry and homeless, and to raise awareness about the issue of poverty, low-income housing, homelessness and mental health.
The Surrey Urban Mission, under the leadership of Jonquil Hallgate and with the help of volunteers, works tirelessly to provide for one of the most vulnerable populations in our community. I applaud their commitment to these important issues.
I also want to congratulate Spice Radio 1200AM and Shushma Datt for their Raise Your Hands Against Racism campaign. This initiative coincides with the Holi festival, or the festival of colours, on March 7. City halls around the Lower Mainland will invite everyone to place a colourful handprint and sign their anti-racism tableau.
I will proudly be adding my handprint to the tableau in Surrey, and I hope all residents will join me in doing the same.
Chancellor of the University of the Fraser ValleyMr. Mark Strahl (Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to honour a constituent of mine, Dr. Gwen Point. On February 4, Dr. Gwen Point was installed as Chancellor of the University of the Fraser Valley at a ceremony in Chilliwack.
 Dr. Point's connection to the University of the Fraser Valley stretches back decades to when she and her husband, former lieutenant governor of British Columbia, Steven Point, enrolled in the school. Since that time, Dr. Point has served as a teacher, scholar, administrator and board member. She has held a number of offices in government, including that of Chatelaine of British Columbia.
As a member of the Skowkale first nation, Dr. Point is a respected Stó:lo leader, mentor and cultural adviser. She has contributed her cultural knowledge and experience to numerous books, conferences, workshops and committees.
Her accomplishments in the field of education, child and family services, and first nations organizations are too numerous to mention in the limited time I have.
 I want to congratulate Dr. Point on her new role as chancellor, and wish her all the best as she helps lead the University of the Fraser Valley into the future.
Wedding Anniversary CongratulationsHon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week was a special one for Bedford's Philip Riteman. Mr. Riteman and his wife, Dorothy, happily celebrated their 65th wedding anniversary on Thursday.
Mr. Riteman also marked another milestone last week, the 70th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp. Mr. Riteman spent a year and a half there, but for this Auschwitz survivor, his story is one of man's love and forgiveness triumphing over evil.
He regularly speaks to students about his experience in a death camp, despite finding it very difficult and emotional to do so.
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Philip and Dorothy, and to thank Mr. Riteman for helping ensure that we never forget.
Public SafetyMr. Parm Gill (Brampton—Springdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last week, the Liberal member for York West demonstrated her party's ignorance on terrorism when she said that if ISIL attacked Canada, it was because the Prime Minister put us in that position.
Reports from last weekend state that while speaking at a Liberal training session in Toronto, the member for Trinity—Spadina said, “...we're dropping bombs on people instead of building civil society. That has to change”. He also called Canada a “war maker”.
On this side of the House, we do not believe defending against ISIL terror makes Canada a war maker. We also know we cannot build a society with terrorists. They are not civil.
In closing, the MP for Trinity—Spadina also noted that Canada needed to respond to world events in a mature and precise way. It is too bad the Liberal leader will not take his advice.
The EconomyMr. Marc-André Morin (Laurentides—Labelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, at a time when Canada's economy is going through some turmoil, entrepreneurs and other citizens have a right to know what direction the government plans to take.
Businesses and workers are wondering what taxation and government programs will look like. The minister is not even capable of bringing down a budget. The Conservatives are lacking brain power.
Next fall, when the Leader of the Opposition is Prime Minister, he will have an embarrassment of riches to choose from when forming his cabinet, unlike the current Prime Minister, whose choices are simply embarrassing. As for the Liberals, they have been embarrassed enough by their leader.
Canadian School Counselling WeekMr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight a vital part of our education system.
The Canadian Counselling and Psychotherapy Association has recognized Canadian School Counselling Week, a week dedicated to increasing public awareness of the scope of programs and services that characterize the important role played by the school counselling profession all across Canada. In addition to helping students with their mental health and overall well-being, school counsellors also make significant contributions to the personal, social, academic and career development of our young people.
I would also like to recognize the fact that the Canadian Counselling and Psychotherapy Association is celebrating its 50th anniversary in 2015.
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the thousands of mental health professionals who make up the association and to thank them for contributing to the well-being of Canadians for half a century.
Violence Against WomenMr. John Barlow (Macleod, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as a father of two daughters, violence against women and girls is a profound concern.
I am proud to say that under the leadership of our Prime Minister, this government is working hard with community stakeholders to address this issue.
Our commitment is clear: funding the global maternal, newborn and child health initiative; a national action plan to address violence against aboriginal women and girls; and enacting laws against cyberbullying. Also, the status of women committee, of which I am a proud member, is in the midst of a comprehensive study on best practices to stop violence against women.
The statistics on this issue are concerning. One in three women across the planet will be beaten or raped in their lifetime; that is one billion women and girls.
On February 14, I will be participating in One Billion Rising with the Rowan House and Pincher Creek emergency shelters in my riding.
I encourage all of my colleagues in the House to lend their voice to this fight, especially the men. We have to change the narrative. This is not just violence against women; this is also about men perpetrating violence against women.
Have a Heart DayMr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, let me draw the attention of all members and all Canadians to an event this Valentine's Day called “Have A Heart Day”, sponsored by the First Nation's Child and Family Caring Society of Canada.
This is our opportunity to stand with the children of first nations for the chance to grow up safely at home, to get a good education, to be healthy and to be proud of their cultures, in short, to know first nations children have the same services and opportunities as all other Canadian children.
Canadians can explore the Have A Heart website for more information and send an e-valentine to the Prime Minister or to their member of Parliament.
Let us remember Jordan's principle and help put an end to government red tape, depriving children of first nations of government services available to all others. Let us support Shannon's dream for safe schools and equitable education for the children of first nations.
This Valentine's Day, Canadians should show their heart. They should plan their own celebrations or join one of the many nation-wide Have A Heart events. 
We should help all children of first nations to be proud and successful, because their dreams matter too.
TaxationMr. Ben Lobb (Huron—Bruce, CPC): Mr. Speaker, thanks to our government, Canadian families can be assured that their hard-earned money is making its way back to their bank accounts.
Our plan is simple and we stand by it. We trust parents to invest in their children and spend their money as they see fit.
Soon families in my riding of Huron—Bruce will receive just under $2,000 annually per child under the age of 6, and $720 per year for youth aged 6 to 17. The NDP and Liberals on the other hand want to take this money away and spend it on big government bureaucracy instead.
Despite the opposition and third party Liberals who have positioned themselves against middle-class families, I am proud that our government is giving money back to each and every family with children in Canada.
Canadian FlagMr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on February 15, 1965, for the last time, the Canadian Red Ensign bearing the Union Jack and the shield of the Royal Arms of Canada was lowered. Then, on the stroke of noon, our maple leaf was raised for the first time.
Words spoken then still ring true today, “The flag is the symbol of the nation's unity, for it, beyond any doubt, represents all the citizens of Canada without distinction of race, language, belief or opinion”.
It flutters above government buildings, businesses, schools, homes, diplomatic missions and our Parliament. It is worn on the uniforms of our proud armed forces, who defend our Canadian values and our future.
Symbolizing peace and acceptance, our flag is respected the world over. Let it forever be a beacon of hope and a symbol to us, as Canadians, to strive for greatness.
On February 15, we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Canadian flag. May it continue to fly over our great nation strong and free.
The EnvironmentMr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday in Convent Glen I was pleased to join Michael Rosen, President of Tree Canada, at the Ecology Ottawa event called “Everyone Loves Trees!”.
 This event coincided with Tu B'Sheavat, the Jewish New Year of Trees. With the counter-culture movement of the 1960s, this holiday has morphed into a Jewish ecology day and promotes ecological awareness.
As members know, I have been a tree champion since my Scouting days. In 2011, this House approved my private member's motion to declare the Wednesday of the last full week of September National Tree Day.
At last Tuesday's event, Ecology Ottawa urged each of us to adopt a tree. The typical Canadian produces enough carbon dioxide during his or her lifespan to feed 15 trees, so once again I urge the people of Orléans to get on with it and plant trees to compensate. Whether they want to adopt one tree or 15 trees or would like more information on caring for trees, I encourage them to go to treeottawa.org and adopt a tree today.
Health Partners InternationalMr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Health Partners International of Canada, an NGO headquartered in the West Island of Montreal, on 25 years of delivering essential medicines and medical supplies to vulnerable communities, particularly those in the developing world. Since 1990, it has remarkably delivered over 20 million treatments to such communities.
 Health Partners collects medicines and supplies that are donated by medical suppliers, including both research-based and generic pharmaceutical companies, and creates physician travel packs, including mother-child health kits, which are then given to physicians and other volunteers travelling to areas of need abroad.
In Canada and other developed countries, we are fortunate to be able to readily access medicines, including painkillers, which we might need one day.
Thanks to its extraordinary vision and its ability to form partnerships, HPIC helps alleviate the pain of a great many people in our global village.
TaxationMr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, despite the opinions of the Liberals and the NDP, a job-killing carbon tax is not what our country needs at this time, especially in the case of northern Canadians, who already have a higher cost of living. 
Our government will continue to deliver on our low-tax plan, which will create jobs for all Canadians. We will not weigh them down with unnecessary tax hikes. It is simply a reckless policy, and our Conservative government will make sure that as we lower taxes not only for Canadian families but also for Canadian businesses and reduce the GST from 7% to 5%, we are taking care of Canadian families, their needs, and their businesses to give them the greatest opportunities.
We will reject any opportunity the Liberals try to create to raise taxes on Canadian families. We expect that the NDP and the Liberals who support this plan will be soundly rejected by Canadians, who know that the Conservative government and its low-tax plan are best for Canadian families.
EthicsMr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today we learned that the Prime Minister's current chief of staff will be forced to testify in a criminal case involving a payment made by Nigel Wright.
Conservative Ray Novak will be called to testify, and we may even see the Prime Minister called to the stand. Maybe we will finally hear from the Prime Minister abput what he meant when he told Nigel Wright that the Mike Duffy payments were “good to go”, why he claimed that no one in his office except Nigel Wright knew about the payments when emails clearly show that many more were involved, or why he said he did not know about illegal payments when records show that he did.
Last summer at the PMO it was “difficult to imagine” the Prime Minister testifying. I would say it does not take much imagination now to see the Prime Minister take the stand. Hopefully Canadians will then finally get truthful answers from the Conservatives about the PMO-orchestrated cover-up of the Senate scandal. 
TaxationMr. Bernard Trottier (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, CPC): Mr. Speaker, since coming to office, our government has made it a duty to ensure that Canadian families have the support they need to grow and thrive. That is why our Prime Minister announced we would be putting hard-earned money back into the pockets of Canadian moms and dads with the family tax cut plan and the enhanced child care benefit.
Soon families in my riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore will receive just under $2,000 annually per child under six. When it is added up, a family with three children will receive nearly $36,000 by the time the children turn six years old. 
However, notwithstanding his lack of experience, the Liberal leader has shown that same old Liberal Party arrogance by pledging to reverse our tax breaks. Liberals will take this money away from Canadian families.
Unlike the members on that side of the House, we will continue to stand up for Canadian families.

Oral Questions
Intergovernmental RelationsNycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, Canada's mayors have come together to send a clear message: our cities need real long-term federal investments in infrastructure, affordable housing, and public transit. Decades of neglect by Liberals and Conservatives have left our cities falling behind.
Why do the Conservatives refuse to invest in making cities more livable?
Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government has introduced the largest infrastructure plan in Canadian history. It amounts to $75 billion over the next decade. This includes a $53 billion new Building Canada plan to provide significant support for municipalities, provinces, and territories.
 In less than a year, numerous projects have already been approved. An estimated $5 billion worth of projects have already been identified for funding. The projects include a new public transit system in Edmonton and highway systems in many other provinces.
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the Conservative government is listening to municipal mayors.
Eighteen mayors of Canada's major cities are calling on the Conservative government to invest in public transit, infrastructure and housing in order to create jobs. The mayors had not even left Ottawa before the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs turned them down flat.
Why do the Conservatives insist on giving tax cuts to the wealthy instead of investing in job creation for the middle class?
Peter Braid: Mr. Speaker, in actual fact, municipalities and provinces own 95% of the public infrastructure in Canada. Notwithstanding this fact, the federal government is still there as a major partner.
 We are also taking a leadership role with respect to federally owned infrastructure. Last fall, the Prime Minister announced $6 billion for federally owned infrastructure. These important investments will be made at national historic sites, Canadian Armed Forces facilities, research centres, and Coast Guard facilities, just to name a few.
Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, the mayors of Canada's major cities represent two-thirds of the Canadian population. They are calling for public transit for their residents, who are stuck in traffic jams every day. They are calling for social housing for people who have inadequate housing, and safer and more efficient infrastructure.
Why are the Conservatives refusing to work with the municipalities and the provinces?
Peter Braid: Mr. Speaker, as I have clearly explained, we are making record investments in public infrastructure across the country, and this includes record investments in public transit. 
Since we formed government in 2006, we have invested close to $8 billion in public transit alone. This includes important investments in the new LRT system in my own home community of Waterloo region.
Public SafetyPeter Julian: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we asked the minister a simple question about the new anti-terrorism bill. Once again, we did not get an answer.
Bill C-51 would extend CSIS' powers beyond intelligence activities, to enable the agency to disrupt terrorist acts, or interfere somehow, before they happen. 
Could the minister clearly explain the types of activities that will be authorized?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. This is a very important question. In fact, there has been some erroneous and inaccurate reporting around this subject.
CSIS' mandate to disrupt threats will be based on the definition of “threats to the security of Canada”. It is found in section 2 of the CSIS Act. It has been based on CSIS' primary investigative mandate since 1984. The definition includes espionage, sabotage, foreign-influenced activities, terrorism, and subversion, and it explicitly excludes lawful advocacy, protest, or dissent.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, it seems the more questions we ask on this, the fewer answers we are actually getting. Canadians deserve better. They actually deserve concrete and complete answers to the questions we are asking.
Allowing CSIS to go beyond the collection of intelligence and into the business of enforcement and the disruption of threats is a major shift. It is the duty of the government to clearly explain what is meant by this change and why it is necessary. What kinds of activities would Bill C-51 allow CSIS to undertake? Who will determine when charter rights—Canadians' rights and freedoms—are threatened and judicial oversight is required?
Peter MacKay: The short answer, Mr. Speaker, would be, of course, a judge. I will point out that the powers being granted to CSIS will be subject to strict limits. CSIS will be forbidden from taking any measures that cause, intentionally or by negligence, death or bodily harm; that violate the sexual integrity of an individual; or that willfully obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice. 
CSIS will not become a law enforcement agency. CSIS employees would not be given the powers of peace officers, such as the ability to arrest or imprison individuals. CSIS has always been and will continue to be required to seek a warrant.
The EconomyMr. Emmanuel Dubourg (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the budget for the building Canada fund for infrastructure dropped from $2 billion to $210 million this year. It has been cut by 90%. Retail stores are dropping like flies and the manufacturing sector has shed 400,000 jobs. These sectors need the infrastructure to be competitive and to create good jobs.
In addition to delaying the budget, the Prime Minister told us, on Tuesday in the House, that we are going through an economic crisis.
Is it true that we are in an economic crisis or did the Prime Minister make a mistake?
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, since the depths of the global recession, almost 1.2 million net new jobs have been created, over 80% full time, over 80% in the private sector, and over 60% in high-wage industries. However, Canada is not immune to the economic challenges beyond our borders. That is why our Conservative government is working hard to help create jobs and economic prosperity.
While we are focused on creating jobs, the Liberal leader has the same old high-tax, high-debt agenda that would threaten jobs and set working families back.
InfrastructureHon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when Canada's premiers call for increased infrastructure investment, the finance minister calls them oblivious to economics. Yet economic experts like David Dodge, the IMF, and the Bank of Canada agree that there has never been a better time to make infrastructure investments here in Canada. The Conservatives are not listening. In fact, they slashed the building Canada fund by 90% to create a notional surplus on the eve of an election. 
Will the government heed the premiers and the economic experts, reverse these harmful cuts, fix Canada's infrastructure, and create jobs and growth for Canadians?
Peter Braid: Mr. Speaker, once again, that is incorrect. Furthermore, I would add that we will take no lessons from the Liberals, either on investing in infrastructure or on balancing the budget. When they were in government, they did so little on infrastructure. How did they balance the budget? They did it by slashing transfers to health care and education and by starving municipalities. Our government has been repairing the damage ever since.
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, adding $160 billion to the national debt does not sound like the Conservatives are doing a very good job repairing damage.
The Conservatives are fudging the numbers on the building Canada fund. They are inflating them by spanning them over a decade, when in fact 70% of the funds will not even flow until after 2019. They could get even more creative with their accounting. They could span the fund over 100 years and create a really, really big number. Meanwhile, in reality, they have actually cut the fund by 90% for the next two years to create this notional surplus on the eve of an election.
When will they stop misleading Canadians with creative accounting and actually fix Canada's infrastructure?
Peter Braid: We are making record investments, Mr. Speaker. The new building Canada plan has been open for business since last March. In less than a year, projects representing an estimated $5 billion have already been identified for funding. We are there as a major partner with municipalities and provinces. We are renewing infrastructure. We are creating jobs and prosperity and enhancing the quality of life for all Canadians.
Foreign AffairsPaul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, the world is currently coordinating its response to ISIS-inspired terrorism and extremism. Canada should be at the table and not on the sidelines. A major security conference in Munich is happening this week to discuss terrorism. Twenty world leaders are attending, along with some 60 foreign and defence ministers.
I have a very simple question for the government. Will Canada be represented at this important international summit, yes or no?
Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has gotten up and asked questions about our response to ISIS, and we have responded in the areas he has been concerned about. We have responded in the areas of sexual violence, protecting minorities, dealing with war criminals, and dealing with refugees, and we are proud of the effort our country has put into dealing with this issue and dealing with the crisis in Iraq and Syria, and we will continue to work on the issue.
Public SafetyMr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP): Mr. Speaker, many Canadians are concerned that Bill C-51 would go too far by lumping together legal dissent with terrorist activity. When it comes to critical anti-terrorism outreach at home, the Conservatives are still missing in action. The only counter-radicalization program the minister can point to has been on the drawing board since 2013, but it still has not been rolled out, and when it is, it is not going to get any new funding. 
Is this the minister's only plan to work with communities to counter radicalization?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, there are numerous ways in which we are countering radicalization, including the ability, now, to remove material that is seen to incite or provoke terrorism. Beyond that, we have cultural round tables. We have outreach. The security forces themselves are very actively engaged in that.
However, I want to point out that the hon. member quotes selectively from the SIRC report. The report goes on to state that:
 The Committee is confident that it has the expertise and ability to effectively take on new challenges. 
It goes on to state:
 ...the Committee has confidence in its ability to adapt [to measures and]...remains relevant and effective in providing proper accountability of Canada's security intelligence activities. 
They should quote the entire--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please.
The hon. member for Alfred-Pellan.
Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, if we want to fight radicalization, the federal government absolutely has to work with the communities that are on the ground.
Instead, the Conservatives are using the terrorist threat to advance their political agenda. Experts fear that this is counterproductive. We all agree that terrorism is a threat.
Does the minister recognize that this is too important to be made into a campaign issue?
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
Government agencies and departments have many opportunities to consult the community on efforts to combat radicalization.
However, let us be clear. This is not an issue of playing politics. This is an issue of imminent threats. This is an issue we are adapting to in an evolving threat environment. That is why the legislation is brought forward, that is why these efforts are ongoing, and that is why the members opposite should--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please.
The hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard.
EmploymentMs. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadians have lost their jobs to foreign workers. Migrant workers, like Chris and Jona Pineda, have had their wages stolen by their employers. Yet the minister is so confident that the employers are co-operating with the rules of the program that he believes that there is no need to conduct any onsite inspections.
After the big announcement, nothing changes. When is the minister finally going to crack down on employer abuse with real inspections?
Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, obviously, this is the government that brought in the reviews and the inspections, but when we brought this in, the NDP was concerned. Its members said “They're going to be sending in quasi-police officers”. They were against warrantless access. Now in the House, they are rising to say that they are upset that we have not had to use it.
The reason we have not had to use it is that the employers are co-operating. We continue to make inspections to make sure that the rules are being followed, and in instances where they are not being followed, we are taking action
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe: Mr. Speaker, how can we trust their version of the facts when we see that something different is happening on the ground?
The Minister of Employment must be very trusting since we have learned that he is content with merely asking employers whether they are abusing the temporary foreign worker program.
If the employer says that everything is fine and that he is following all the rules, what does the minister do? He closes the file. Quite frankly, we have seen better inspectors. We understand the anger of Sandy Nelson and Shaunna Jennison-Yung, who lost their jobs to temporary foreign workers. They deserve a real investigation.
When will the government take the abuse of this program seriously?
Paul Calandra: Again, Mr. Speaker, as the minister said, thousands of investigations have taken place and continue to take place. There is a dedicated team at ESDC to conduct these investigations. Employers have been co-operating, but obviously, in instances where employers do not co-operate, we do have the tools in place to make sure that the rules are being followed. As we have said, if the rules are not being followed, we will ensure that employers suffer severe consequences.
Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the employment numbers are nothing to celebrate.
In January, the number of full-time jobs dropped by 11,800, and most of the new jobs that were created are part-time jobs. Things are even worse for young people, who are simply giving up on trying to find work. Meanwhile, the United States is experiencing strong economic growth.
Is the Conservatives' strategy just to wait until Canada feels the effects of the American economic recovery?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, although monthly job numbers are volatile, we are encouraged by the growth in employment in January. 
Since the depths of the global recession, almost 1.2 million net new jobs have been created. Over 80% are full-time, and an overwhelming majority of these are in the private sector in high-wage industries.
 However, as long as Canadians are looking for work, our Conservative government will continue to focus on creating jobs and long-term economic prosperity. In contrast, the NDP would push risky, high-tax, and high-debt schemes that would kill Canadian jobs and hurt Canada's economy.
Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Mr. Speaker, all the jobs that came were part-time, precarious jobs. The economy actually lost 12,000 jobs in January, and the Conservatives call the economy spectacular. This is after 2014, when the Canadian economy grew at half the pace of the Canadian population. 
Four hundred thousand lost manufacturing jobs, and Conservatives say everything is just spectacular. They continue to stick their heads in the sand.
We put forward real, concrete solutions to help the manufacturing sector and the small-business sector. When are Conservatives actually going to get to work, bring froward a budget and a plan, and help Canadians, the 1.3 million Canadians who are out of work, find their own jobs back again?
Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism, and Agriculture), CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to my colleague's question. 
Quite simply, we see that the NPD's plan will not work. Their plan requires more spending and will put Canadians further into debt. The Government of Canada's debt will be paid by these people, by workers. We know that workers need more money in their pockets to stimulate the economy.
That being said, our plan is working very well because it is creating jobs. A total of 1.2 million net new jobs have been created since the recession. We will continue in that direction in order to create jobs and lower taxes for all Canadians.
PovertyMr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP): Mr. Speaker, he did not answer the question, because 12,000 full-time jobs disappearing and 47,000 new part-time jobs does not do anything to end poverty in Canada. 
There are 4.8 million Canadians who struggle to make ends meet. That is one in seven Canadians. This week, the Dignity For All campaign released its plan to end poverty in Canada. It believes that if Canada commits to a plan and takes reasonable steps, the eradication of poverty is within reach.
 Why is the Conservative government refusing to develop a comprehensive plan to end poverty in Canada?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, our government has provided record support for low-income Canadians. For example, we have removed over one million low-income Canadians, 380,000 of which are seniors, from the tax rolls entirely. We have increased the amount Canadians can earn without paying taxes. We have created the landmark working income tax benefit to support low-income Canadians who do work and have increased the guaranteed income supplement for the most vulnerable Canadian seniors. The Liberals and the NDP voted against these measures and against helping low-income Canadians each and every time.
Ms. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the plan proposed by Dignity for All is ambitious and seeks to reduce and eliminate poverty in Canada once and for all.
In a country as rich as ours, it is inconceivable that 4.8 million Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. The plan proposes six areas for action: employment, food security, health, income security, housing and early childhood education. It is all mapped out. All that is needed is the political will to act.
Why are the Conservatives not making the fight against poverty a priority?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, poverty reduction is a priority under our government. Under our government, the share of Canadians living in low-income families is at its lowest level in three decades. Low-income families have seen a 14% increase in their real after-tax income since 2006. Canada's progressive tax system also ensures that people with low incomes pay little to no tax. In fact, over 40% of all taxpayers pay no net tax. 
It is no wonder the federal tax burden is at its lowest level in over 50 years.
InfrastructureHon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives keep trying to deny it, but they actually cut the building Canada fund by 90% and now are trying to mislead Canadians with empty promises of money years in the future.
Yesterday the big city mayors called on the federal government to immediately invest in transit, housing, and other critical infrastructure. It is time for the Conservatives to do their part to make livable, humane, affordable cities. 
Will the government flow the increased infrastructure money this year to improve quality of life, create jobs, and spur economic growth?
Peter Braid: Mr. Speaker, that member is misleading the House.
Our government's investments in infrastructure are three times greater than the previous Liberal government. These investments are building roads, highways, and bridges. They are expanding public transit.
What would the opposition do? It would hike taxes, run deficits, and leave a burden of debt to our kids and grandkids.
Francis Scarpaleggia: Mr. Speaker, we know that the Conservatives cut the building Canada fund by 90%, and that was before the drop in oil prices revealed the government's blatant lack of economic vision.
Now that the government faces the revenue shortfall that comes from putting all of its eggs in one basket, should cities and towns in Quebec, where the winter freeze is playing havoc yet again this year with old water infrastructure, be bracing for even further cuts to the investments they so urgently need to support their communities?
Peter Braid: Mr. Speaker, one of the key pillars of the new building Canada plan is the gas tax fund.
Here is what our government has done with respect to the gas tax fund: We have doubled it. We have made it permanent. We are indexing it moving forward.
The municipalities receive over $2 billion a year just through gas tax transfer funding. That funding is making a difference today, in every municipality across this great country.
Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, communities across Atlantic Canada have urgent infrastructure needs: water and sewer, transit and housing, roads and bridges.
They are looking for the federal government to be a partner. The Conservatives' response is to cut funding, from $2 billion last year, to $210 million this year and next. We need investment now, not in 2020.
Why do the Conservatives refuse to partner with municipalities to generate economic growth and help middle-class families?
Peter Braid: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Liberals have been out of government for some period of time. 
I would be pleased to sit down with any member of the Liberal caucus to brief them on the new building Canada plan and to refresh them on how government accounting and the estimates process works.
This Conservative government is making record investments in infrastructure: $2 billion in gas tax funding flowing to municipalities today. As we speak, under the new building Canada plan, already projects estimated at $5 billion have been identified.
VeteransMs. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Master Corporal Paul Franklin lost both of his legs in an explosion in Afghanistan.
Every year, he is required to produce a medical certificate to prove to the department that he has lost his legs. Twice, his wheelchair has been taken away. That is surreal. Master Corporal Franklin is still fighting, not in Afghanistan, but here, for proper treatment of his case and those of other veterans. 
When will the minister finally intervene?
Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, when the minister was first appointed, he worked very closely with the department, and he directed them to reduce forms and processes and obstacles to our veterans who would be applying for benefits. He wants less red tape for our veterans.
I also want to point out to the House that the minister reached out personally to the person who was identified in this question.
Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP): Mr. Speaker, veterans are still waiting, and they should not be forced every year to prove the obvious, that they are still missing limbs.
It should not take national attention for the government to realize that this burden of proof is wrong. Whether it is spending $700,000 to fight veterans in court or denying that they have a sacred obligation to veterans, the Conservatives still do not get it.
Will the government stop its policy of requiring veterans to perennially prove that they have lost their limbs?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I just responded to that question
Let me just point out a few other things. By reducing red tape and backroom bureaucratic expenses at Veterans Affairs Canada, veterans are benefiting. 
I would point out, for example, that 90% of the budget at Veterans Affairs Canada actually goes to delivering services to veterans and their families, as opposed to paying for all of these backroom administrative costs. I would also point out that it is our government that is opening nine new offices to deliver new mental health services to veterans across the country.
TaxationIrene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, for a single working mum, child care means being able to work. For struggling middle-class families, child care costs are breaking their budget.
Conservatives were elected on a promise to create 125,000 child care spaces, but they broke that promise to Canadian parents. Conservatives created zero spaces.
Families who cannot access affordable child care do not have a choice. Why are the Conservatives turning their backs on affordable child care?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, as the member will recall, when we took office we started to reverse the legacy of transfer payment cuts left behind by the Liberals, some $50 billion in cuts. We started to reverse that, and the money that was sent to our provincial partners created in excess of 260,000 child care spaces. 
We are going even further by introducing the universal child care benefit, providing families with $100. That is now increasing to $160 for children under the age of six, but going even a step further, $60 for those kids who are between 6 and 17. We have increased the deduction for child care expenses by $1,000.
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, in addition to having created zero day care spaces, the Conservatives have cut existing spaces located in workplaces. Some day cares within the federal public service, including those in Ottawa, are being forced to close because the Conservatives have stopped subsidizing rent and cleaning costs. 
Why are the Conservatives bound and determined to complicate the lives of public servants who are parents and are trying to balance work and family life?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, our public service is like all of our Canadian families, and under our plan 100% of Canadian families would benefit from the announcements we have made. In fact, on average, Canadians would have an additional $1,200 in their pockets because of the changes we have introduced. 
I note, of course, that the NDP and the Liberals would take away that benefit. They would take the $160 a month that families are already getting per child under six. They would take away the $60 a month. They would probably reverse the $1,000 increase in child deductions that we have put in place. 
Canadians families understand that when it comes to protecting them and their families, they can count on—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMr. David Wilks (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we understand that our immigration system must be fast, flexible, and adaptable to Canada's labour market needs. 
On January 1, our government introduced express entry, Canada's next-generation approach to managing and processing applications for our most popular economic immigration programs.
 Can the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration please explain how this new apparatus will benefit the best and brightest would-be newcomers?
Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank the very hard-working member for Kootenay—Columbia, both for the question and for the amazing work he does for his constituents every day on immigration matters and all of the other issues of concern to them.
Yes, express entry is the new system for delivering Canada's economic immigration programs, which remain the best in the world. Instead of just taking the next person who turns up, we will now be selecting and recruiting those with the in-demand skills that Canada's economy needs. 
That is excellent news for employers. It is great news for temporary workers transitioning to permanent status—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.
HealthMs. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as National Eating Disorders Awareness Week wraps up, Canadians are coming together to call the government to action and shed light on the seriousness of eating disorders that affect more than a million women and men across Canada. On this side of the house, we are listening, and with our new berealcanada.ca campaign, we are taking action. 
For families struggling with eating disorders, it remains a battle to obtain care. For many, help comes too little too late. 
Will the government join us and support our call for a national eating disorder strategy?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question, and while I have the floor I would also like to thank the member for Oakville who brought forward a recommendation that the status of women committee investigate this. I know that the committee has been working very hard and has introduced a report that we will obviously take a look at. 
This is a very serious issue. That is why, when we first came to office, we started to reverse the billions of dollars in health care cuts that were a hallmark of the Liberal government.
By putting those reinvestments in place, our provincial partners have the resources they need to invest, not only in this, but in so many other areas of health care that have suffered under the previous Liberal government.
Laurin Liu: Mr. Speaker, maybe the government should tell that to the families that have to wait a year for treatment.
Only 4% of women are satisfied with their appearance, and over half of all women whose weight is normal want to be thinner. Even though eating disorders affect primarily women, about 20% of the victims are men.
I will therefore repeat my question. Will the government listen to the people working on the front lines and implement a strategy to fight eating disorders?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, our government is listening, and we started listening from the day we were elected. That is why we reversed the previous health care cuts that were a hallmark of the previous Liberal government. 
Again, I would like to commend the member for Oakville for his work on this, and the status of women committee. They have been doing a great job on this.
We will continue to listen to our health care partners because it is very important. I note, of course, that we have transferred 6% additionally, each and every year that we have been in office. However, for example, Ontario has only reinvested 3% of that 6%. 
We will continue to invest what we need to invest to improve health care benefits for all Canadians, and we will do that by working with the professionals in the industry.
TelecommunicationsMs. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP): Mr. Speaker, they have no reason to be proud, since they have cut billions of dollars in health transfers.
Royal Galipeau:  Oh, my God. Go back to school.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach:  On another subject, Mr. Speaker, thousands of Canadians living in remote and rural areas, like the ones in Beauharnois—Salaberry, still do not have Internet access. Either the connection is too slow, unreliable or ineffective, or else the price is exorbitant.
In the United States, the minimum connection speed was increased to 25 megabytes. Here in Canada, we are still at five megabytes. Our slow network is bad for investments and is hindering the economic development of our regions. 
Will the minister finally fix the situation?
Maxime Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I do not think my colleague has been following the debates in the House or has read the bills we introduced recently. In fact, we have a program that has existed for a few years now to help bring Internet access to northern communities and other communities in Canada that do not have it.
It is important that Canadians have Internet access, and under our government, we put this program in place to ensure that they do. I invite my colleague to look into the Industry Canada program. She will see that high-speed Internet access is available to all Canadians.
HousingMs. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Trois-Rivières, the Coalition d'aide aux victimes de la pyrrhotite launched a national solidarity campaign, in response to the government's inaction and its failure to help thousands of families break free from their nightmare. In the meantime, the government is collecting millions of dollars in taxes from the repair work being done on the homes.
When will the minister show some courage and finally work with the different levels of government to find a definitive solution to help the pyrrhotite victims? 
Maxime Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I am a bit disappointed in the question from my colleague since she should know that this matter falls under provincial jurisdiction. This government respects the jurisdictions. The provinces are capable of working in their own jurisdictions. What is more, in 2011, the Government of Quebec launched a program to address this issue.
I would tell the people affected by this problem to contact the Société d'habitation du Québec.
Foreign AffairsHon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the imprisonment and torture of Saudi blogger Raif Badawi is a clear violation of international law and the human conscience.
Will the Canadian government call on Saudi authorities to put an end to this torture and for the immediate and unconditional release of Raif and his lawyer, so that Raif Badawi may be reunited with his family here in Quebec?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, Canada considers the punishment that is faced by Mr. Badawi to be a violation of his human dignity. We continue to call for clemency in his case. 
The promotion and the protection of human rights around the world is an integral part of Canada's foreign policy, and we will continue to pursue that.
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, I hope the next response will be more specific.
We are on the eve of the one-year anniversary of the crackdown on peaceful protests in Venezuela, which left 43 dead, 3,000 arrested, and scores of political prisoners, including Leopoldo López, the leader of the democratic opposition.
Will the Canadian government join the U.S., the UN, the European Parliament, the papacy, and other world leaders, in calling for the immediate release of Leopoldo López and other political prisoners, an end to domestic repression, and the safeguarding of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in Venezuela?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite knows, we continue to call for those principles around the world and will continue to stand strongly for them and speak up on these issues.
Public SafetyMr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a Quebec City resident received a hefty fine from border services for having brought in a food powder containing 2.1% meat. This powder exceeded the limit by 0.1%, and she was fined $800. Eight hundred dollars for Bovril powdered bouillon is a bit much. 
This story proves that the Conservatives' security priorities are misguided. This woman wrote a letter to the Minister of Public Safety. When will the minister respond?
Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this gives me an opportunity, first of all, to thank the Canada Border Services Agency for the good work it does in helping to keep our borders safe. On this particular issue we are taking action regarding our relations with the United States as well. The result of all the good work we do as a Conservative government is greater security, continued economic growth, and more jobs for Canadians in the years to come.
Canada PostMr. Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, NDP): Mr. Speaker, for the second time in two years, Canada Post has announced that the post office in Chicoutimi-Nord will be closing. This post office provides an essential service, and is the second most profitable post office in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean. However, the words “essential” and “profitable” do not mean much to the Conservatives.
From 2001 to 2006, the Liberals shut down 50 post offices, while the Conservatives shut down 100 from 2012 to 2013. Can we put an end to this race to the bottom, and can we save our post office in Chicoutimi-Nord?
Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in 2013, Canada Post delivered 1.2 billion fewer letters than in 2006. Two-thirds of Canadians do not receive home delivery. Canada Post must balance its finances without imposing a burden on Canadian taxpayers, and we would expect nothing less.
TaxationMr. Blake Richards (Wild Rose, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the communities in my riding are filled with hard-working Canadian families who need tax breaks to help with the costs of raising their families—not the opposition's massive spending schemes and carbon taxes that would kill their jobs.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister please update the House on the action that our government is taking to help Canadian families?
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, let me thank the member for Wild Rose for sticking up for Canadian families each and every day in the House.
We know that the NDP has long advocated a job-killing carbon tax, but recently we also learned that the Liberal leader not only supports a job-killing carbon tax, but is actually encouraging his provincial comrades to bring in the exact same scheme.
Our government is going to continue to focus on families. The changes that we have made and the investments we are making will give Canadian families an extra $1,200 in their pockets. Those are real benefits, that is real change. Canadians know that they can continue to count on us to provide more money in their pockets so they can invest in their priorities.
Fisheries and OceansHon. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the government's response to a report by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans concerning small craft harbours, a suggestion—no, a promise—was made to the House and to the thousands of volunteer members of our country's harbour authorities that the government would not cut the very lifelines needed to manage these harbours for the mutual benefit of both DFO and the communities. Yet, in Newfoundland and Labrador, that is exactly what is happening: cuts to staff, cuts to training, and cuts to DFO offices. 
Why the double-cross of our harbour authorities and the volunteers? Why was Parliament deceived?
Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member that our government values our small craft harbour authorities and our volunteers. Our communities and the industry benefit greatly from their work and they are to be commended for it.
However, let me be clear on behalf of the minister that we will not endorse any change that would result in the reduction of frontline services to harbour authorities. In fact, after considering the input received from volunteers, the minister can confirm that the third area manager position will be maintained. Discussions are ongoing with our harbour authorities and volunteers to ensure that their needs are met.
EmploymentDavid Sweet: Mr. Speaker, thanks to the leadership of our Prime Minister, Canada has had the best job creation record in the G7 since 2006 when we were elected. While our focus is on creating jobs, the Liberal Party has the same old high tax, big government, high debt agenda that will threaten jobs and set working families back. 
Given our government's unprecedented focus on the economy, could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance please update us on the job numbers for Canada today?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tell the House today that employment increased in January by over 35,000 jobs. In addition, Canada has created over 1.2 million net new jobs since the economic downturn in 2009. Over 87% of these jobs are full-time, and the overwhelming majority are high-paying jobs in the private sector. 
Unlike the opposition's plan to increase taxes, we will continue to move forward with lowering taxes and providing benefits directly to families for them to reinvest in the Canadian economy.
TaxationMr. Jean-François Larose (Repentigny, FD): Mr. Speaker, the IMF has recommended that G20 governments fund a major global infrastructure initiative through loans, not austerity measures.
Contrary to the government's rhetoric, the IMF and many other public finance experts have told us that we are entering a long period of economic stagnation, high unemployment and growing inequality between rich and poor.
It is time for the Minister of Finance to wake up. Does he not agree with the experts?
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, middle-class Canadians are better off because of our Conservative government. The median net worth of Canadian families has increased by 45% since we took office. For the first time, middle-income Canadians are better off than Americans. The average Canadian family pays nearly $3,400 less in taxes, and now every family with children in Canada will stand to benefit from our latest tax breaks, including the increase and the expansion of the universal child care benefit and the new family tax cut.
Shamefully, the opposition would take these benefits away.
Jean-François Larose: Mr. Speaker, a simple yes or no would have sufficed.
The government is balancing its books at the expense of the regions, Canadians, the environment and our infrastructure. There will be a large debt to pay. The regions are dealing with economic decline and the exodus of their youth. The unemployment rate is rising.
Why does the government not take advantage of historically low interest rates to boost the power and financial capacity of all our regions, not just urban areas?
Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, for Official Languages and for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec provides economic development services for all Quebec regions. We are waiting for projects and we will examine all of them on their merits.
HealthMrs. Sana Hassainia (Verchères—Les Patriotes, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, since last fall, many people in my riding have shared with me their concern about the alarming number of youth suicides. Since this is suicide prevention week in Quebec, I would like to remind members of some facts.
According to Statistics Canada, suicide was the cause of death for approximately 270 young people aged 10 to 19. What is more, although it is difficult to know how many suicide attempts were made, it is thought that for every death by suicide, there are 200 suicide attempts. It is possible to prevent these deaths, particularly by ensuring that people with mental health disorders have access to all the resources they need.
I would therefore like to know whether this government intends to respond favourably to the request of Partners for Mental Health to create a national youth suicide prevention fund. 
Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, we understand how important these issues are, and that is why we have made significant investments with our provincial partners in mental health issues.
At the same time, one of the most important things we have done since taking office in 2006 is to reverse the decade of health care cuts that was a hallmark of the Liberal government. We have increased transfers to our provincial partners by about 6% a year. We are going to continue to do that in the future because we understand how important health care is to Canadians.
JusticeElizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the Minister of Justice could answer two specific questions relating to Bill C-51, the act that would create a new secret police. One is whether the—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh. oh!
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order. 
[Interjection]
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if I could continue. There was too much noise.
My two questions for the Minister of Justice are simple. Will he amend the act to ensure that non-violent civil disobedience is precluded from the ambit of the act? 
Second, could he please explain to the House the purpose of part 4, clause 42, that in taking measures to reduce the threat to the security of Canada, CSIS shall not “violate the sexual integrity of an individual”. Why was that—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. Minister of Justice.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the first part of the member's question, I think that over-the-top rhetoric is quite insulting to our security forces.
To the second part of her question regarding the protections against lawful protest, this is covered by the act. This would not pose a threat to individuals who engage in lawful assembly.
I spoke to the earlier part of her question with regard to the mandate of CSIS not extending beyond its lawful authority and, of course, being subject to judicial oversight.
Points of OrderPeter Julian: Mr. Speaker, during question period, the member for Ottawa—Orléans shouted disparaging and inappropriate remarks regarding the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.
That member has been in the House for a long time. He knows what is appropriate and what is not. I therefore ask that he apologize to the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry and withdraw his remarks.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The Chair also heard the comment. I would first like to remind all hon. members that when one of their colleagues has the floor, hon. members ought to be listening rather than speaking, so in that context any comment is inappropriate. However, I will allow the hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans to address the matter if he wishes. Failing that, the Chair will return to the House if necessary.
[Interjection]
Mr. James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, on a different point of order, I want to assure the House that the Minister of National Defence is representing Canada at the Munich Security Conference on Iraq, as it was alluded that he was not by the member for Ottawa Centre.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): That was more a point of clarification.
Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC): Mr. Speaker, during one of the responses from our side of the House, the member for Scarborough Southwest clearly yelled something that I found very offensive and unparliamentary. I would request that he apologize to the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): In this case, the Chair did not hear that comment. I do not know if the hon. member would like to respond.
 The hon. member for Scarborough Southwest.
Dan Harris: Mr. Speaker, certainly if anyone was offended by anything I might have shouted out in the House, I sincerely apologize. It is very difficult to keep a cool head when the Conservatives continuously boast about a million more Canadians being—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. I trust that will conclude the matter.

Routine Proceedings
Interparliamentary DelegationsIrene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) it is my pleasure to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Parliamentary Delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association.
This report follows its participation at the meeting of the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region, held in Helsinki, Finland, from November 19 to 21, 2014.
PetitionsRaymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to present a petition signed by several hundred people from the riding of Beauport—Limoilou regarding the hundreds of thousands of social housing units that are supported by agreements with the federal government. Those agreements are about to expire, and this is causing a great deal of concern among people who live in those housing units and people who work to support social housing.
I am presenting this petition to convey those concerns and so the government can address them. 
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, citizens of Canada draw Parliament's attention to the fact that a high percentage of prostitutes are forced into the sex trade and traffic. Because of the attendant violence and inhumane abuse, the petitioners request the House of Commons to legislate such that it would be a criminal offence to purchase sex with a woman, man or child and that it be a criminal offence for pimps, madams and others to profit from the proceeds of the sex trade.
Francis Scarpaleggia: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.
The first was signed by a good many of my constituents who are against the Canada Post Corporation's decision to eliminate home mail delivery. The petitioners believe, among other things, that cutting this service could lead to the privatization of Canada Post, even though it is an essential public service.
Francis Scarpaleggia: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is with regard to the inclusion of palliative care in the United Nations sustainable development goals.
 The petitioners state that in cases of severe pain, failure to provide palliative care and pain relief has been reported as constituting cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. They would like the Government of Canada to call for the inclusion of hospice and palliative care in the United Nations sustainable development goals.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.
The first, which was signed by several hundred people, is about the future of the CBC. The petitioners want the Conservatives to reverse the cuts and decisions to eliminate important positions at the CBC because these actions are jeopardizing the future of our public broadcaster.
The NDP also wants guaranteed, stable, multi-year funding to ensure that the CBC can fulfill its mandate for everyone in all regions of the country.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is about improving the Canada Pension Plan. The petitioners want seniors to enjoy retirement security, they want the Conservatives to reverse cuts to old age security, and they want the retirement age of 67 lowered back down to 65.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present.
In the first petition, the petitioners call on Parliament to condemn discrimination against girls, which occurs through gender-selection abortion. They note that an Environics poll showed that 92% of Canadians want gender-selection abortion to be made illegal.
Leon Benoit: Mr. Speaker, in the second petition, the petitioners call on Parliament to do what it can to protect small family farms in the southern hemisphere of the globe by preserving the free use and exchange of seed.
Leon Benoit: Mr. Speaker, in the third petition, the petitioners call for tougher treatment of those who cause death while driving impaired. Specifically, they want the implementation of new mandatory sentences for those found guilty of impaired driving causing death. They also want the charge to be changed from impaired driving causing death to vehicular manslaughter.
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, last month, I had the opportunity to meet the members of Development and Peace, who told me about their concerns over the erosion of ancestral rights in developing countries, specifically with regard to using, storing and trading seed.
I am presenting the petition they gave to me. This petition calls on the House of Commons to commit to adopting international aid policies that support small farmers, and especially women, in order to acknowledge their indispensable role in fighting hunger and poverty, and ensure that Canada's policies and programs are developed in consultation with small farmers and that those policies protect the rights of small farmers in southern countries to store, use and freely trade their seed. 
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions.
The first petition is from many residents within my riding and in nearby ridings on Vancouver Island calling on the House to establish a permanent legislated ban on tanker traffic on the coastline of British Columbia.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is very timely given the Supreme Court of Canada decision this morning. It is from many residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands calling on the House to do exactly what the Supreme Court has now put to us, which is to amend the Criminal Code to create clear guidelines for physicians, so they can assist patients who meet the very strict criteria of being able to end their lives with dignity.
Randy Kamp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition signed by British Columbians. The petitioners believe that Canada's current impaired driving laws are too lenient and should be strengthened by new mandatory minimum sentencing for persons convicted of impaired driving causing death.
Irene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions.
 The first petition concerns the reduction in services by Canada Post, whereby 6,000 to 8,000 workers will lose their jobs. These cuts will hurt seniors and disabled Canadians. Canada Post has not had any real consultations with those people affected and is denying it offers a public service that is needed and must be protected.
 Therefore, the petitioners ask the Government of Canada to reverse the cuts to services announced by Canada Post and to look instead for ways to innovate in areas such as postal banking.
Irene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is basically with respect to children at risk, anaphylactic sufferers.
On May 22, 2013, the members of the House voted unanimously in support of Motion No. 230 with respect to anaphylaxis. The petitioners ask that this initiative be pursued and that Parliament enact a policy to reduce the risk to anaphylactic passengers when travelling on public transport, whether it be by plane, bus or train.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I too am presenting a petition from hundreds of British Columbians in Conservative ridings such as Kamloops, Prince George, Kelowna, Chilliwack, Abbotsford and Surrey. Almost all of them are constituents of Conservative MPs.
 The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to reverse the cuts to Canada Post. They claim that this will hurt seniors, disabled Canadians, small businesses and will dramatically increase mail theft because superboxes are easy to break into.
 These constituents of Conservative MPs call upon the Government of Canada to reverse the cuts to our postal system.
Questions on the Order PaperMr. 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 Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 

Government Orders
Parliamentary Precinct SecurityHon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, I give notice that, with respect to the consideration of Government Business No. 14, at the next sitting, a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that the debate be not further adjourned.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion. 
Ryan Leef: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House and speak to this motion.
 I would like to start my remarks by thanking and congratulating all of the wonderful security staff we have here on Parliament Hill, particularly in light of the events on October 22. 
When I reflect back on my first days here in Parliament in 2011, I remember when I arrived how impressed I was by how quickly each one of the security staff knew us personally and individually and how friendly and responsive and supportive they were. Since that time, in just a few short years, many of us have come to know one another on a first name basis. We have had wonderful chats about family, friends, our interests and hobbies, and the regions of the country we come from. 
This is important, because at the basis of any great security system and organization are the people behind it and the people they serve. I can tell members that not only do they serve us well because of that personal connection and time they give us, but they also do that for the Canadians we invite here each and every day, 365 days a year. We need to be able to maintain that and support them in the job that they do in that regard.
 I have always been very impressed with how members of the security staff put such personal emphasis and energy into the work they do, invariably beyond many of the other things that we can provide in terms of tangible security features, be that equipment, training, or operational strategies. The personality and the personal effort and energy that they put forward in understanding the client base that they serve is probably the single biggest factor in determining everybody's security here on Parliament Hill, and for that I thank them.
Of course, since October 22, a day none of us will soon forget, I have noticed the continued vigilance of our security services here on the Hill and across the parliamentary precinct.
Today's motion speaks to the integration of services. It was mentioned earlier in debate that on Parliament Hill and the parliamentary precinct, and in fact within approximately 150 metres of Parliament Hill, we have five different security or police agencies. We have the House of Commons security, Senate security, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Ottawa Police, and some level of jurisdiction extended to the Ontario Provincial Police in this region. 
Four predominate, and we want to make sure that those services are integrated and working well together. Indeed, they have performed that function for many events, many times, for many years, and they will continue to do so well into the future. 
I need to stress that this motion, which is well outlined, is very clear about a couple of things. 
The motion speaks about integration. It does not speak about replacement. This by no means and in no way will replace the dedicated men and women who serve us here in this building and in many of the other buildings across the parliamentary precinct. It is about making sure that the services here, the men and women in uniform—be that House of Commons security, police services, or the men and women in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police uniform—are able to communicate and work together effectively. 
In my opinion, we owe this to Canadians not only in the sense that they expect us to have a secure, safe, and focused government able to do the business that Canadians expect us to do free from a threat of being interrupted with violence, but also in the sense that they also expect us to make sure that we are able to protect and serve people we invite here every day. I also believe that we owe this to the men and women in uniform.
We owe it to them to make sure they have the best and most integrated system possible, so that they are not in jeopardy, so that they are not at greater risk, so that surprises do not arrive on the doorstep unknown to them, and so that they have the longest and greatest opportunity to anticipate, prevent, and deal with any threat of any level or any crisis that arrives on our doorstep.
It is not just a threat of violence. Emergency situations and crises do not just boil down to armed people storming Parliament Hill, as we saw on October 22. It is about occasions that we cannot always anticipate, such as fire, earthquakes, other emergency-related events, medical emergencies, mass casualties, crowds, and protests. It is not always about highly dramatic and highly dangerous situations; it is also about serious situations that can occur in any security environment, especially here on the Hill.
We have a responsibility, of course, to make sure that all services that exist in and around the parliamentary precinct are able to deal with all of those security events.
The continued access and safety of all Canadians is another reason we need to make sure services are integrated to the greatest and most effective level. After the events of October, Canadians said to us loudly and clearly that they still wanted access to Parliament Hill. Being able to have free and relatively uninterrupted access to the Hill is still a very important part of Canadians' fundamental belief. 
We have provided that for them. We have not overreacted. We have been very focused on the objectives that we have in understanding the threats we faced on that day and that we may continue to face. As I mentioned, threats are not just from encounters of direct violence but also from any other emergency situation that could occur here.
We owe it to those people to make sure that our security systems are sound and provide confidence to parliamentarians, support service staff, and security staff, as well as to our guests, and that we maintain, as best we can, free and clear access to Parliament Hill and to Canada's Parliament.
The precinct is larger than the House of Commons itself. As I listened to the debate this morning, I noticed that a lot of focus was on the events of October 22, which led up the pathway of the Parliament grounds and in through the front doors of this place. We spoke a lot about the impact of the security services and the relationship between the RCMP and our internal security services right here on the Hill in Centre Block. 
However, the parliamentary precinct stretches from the Supreme Court all the way over to East Block. It is a large precinct. In between are open grounds that are monitored and managed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. There are transportation systems here. Parliamentarians move freely in and out of buildings. We move in and out of security jurisdictions. We move in and out of silos. We move in and out of communication systems. We move in and out of different operational strategies. We move in and out of different uniforms and protocols. It only makes sense that we merge those protocols and procedures and integrate them in a manner that makes sense so that there is a common thread and a common flow to them.
 At the same time, as this motion clearly indicates, we need to respect the clear independence of the respective houses and ensure something that is absolutely critical to every member in this House, which is that the positions of the men and women of the security staff are protected. We have watched them do a great job, not just on October 22—which we have made a great deal of, and rightly so—but every day since I have been here, since the day we arrived, since the day I walked in. 
I know I am not a remarkable-looking person, but I will never forget when I walked in the door of La Promenade. I was amazed at how quickly one of the security staff called me by name and directed me in. I could not believe he knew me, as I had just got here. This goes back to my introductory remarks about how well the security staff know their client base and how well they know their people.
When we start to integrate that and make sure that every security service on the Hill does that job equally and with the same level of interest, intent, and focus, we are all going to be that much safer for it. We are going to be that much more confident in what we do. We are all going to be able to focus on the task at hand. We are going to be able to feel tremendous support and confidence when we invite people here. We are going to know that each and every day, we are doing the right things for Canadians.
I am going to talk quickly about the value of integration. As a former member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, I have some experience in this field. I had a 20-year career in law enforcement that was very diversified, ranging from safer community neighbourhoods to corrections, park law enforcement, conservation law enforcement, and private sector security. I understand the nature of security silos. I understand the nature of security and policing, and the commonalities, synergies, and differences between the two.
I am going to give a quick example that will help to illustrate the point of making sure that we have integrated security services. It is not unique. We are not breaking new ground here. This is done all over the country for a whole host of reasons.
There was one occasion when I was hired as a contractor to run the security services for the 2007 Canada Winter Games in Yukon. A private firm ran the security contract for 90 security employees. Of course, there were hundreds of other volunteer security staff, and they were working outside of the mandate and the operational control of the company. In addition, the city, which was served by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, was responsible for the entire venue, including emergency response and the coordination of different volunteer and paid security forces at the different venues, from athlete villages to athletic sites to the celebration grounds to the opening ceremony grounds.
At that time, if we, the volunteer force, and the RCMP had established our own silos and had separately said that this is our job and our mandate and this is what we do, we would not have been able to keep the athletes and the visitors that we invited there safe. Not only that, we would not have been able to have those games go off with such success. That is because security is the cornerstone for everybody to be able to enjoy what they do and focus on the task at hand, whether it is their athleticism or their enjoyment as a spectator and fan.
What did we do? The RCMP took the lead, despite the fact that it did not have a primary mandate of dealing with the athletes village security, which the company I was working for did. We made sure that we integrated our communications. We met nightly to talk about the events of the day. We had briefings.
 This is what integration means. It is the integration of communication and the coordination of clearly defined roles. It is about joint training, which is of tremendous benefit to everybody and would be a tremendous benefit here. It is about joint briefings, information sharing, intelligence sharing, established chains of command and reporting, and interoperability of systems, tools, and equipment. That is obviously very important when multiple security and police forces are working together. Interoperability is so important, particularly with communications systems, as well as with tools and training.
In the response here on October 22, different tools that would otherwise not have been used by services here were being brought into this place. It is not just important, it is critical that the men and women working here know what those tools are and how to use them and how to integrate with them. We have denied them that opportunity thus far. We now have the opportunity to make sure that we are giving them the introduction to those tools, systems, and procedures and giving them the breadth of tools and operating abilities that the RCMP has. We are going to open a field of opportunity, training, and knowledge up to them that is only going to make them better at what they do, and they are already tremendous at what they do.
We took advantage of these kinds of opportunities to integrate systems when I worked at the Canada Winter Games. When we did that in bringing all those forces together, there was no power struggle. There was no, “You're better than us; we're better than you.” It was not about that, and it is not about that here. It was about ensuring that we were able to put those kinds of discussion aside for the ultimate task at hand, the safety and security of our clients; the safety and security of the fans, the spectators, and the athletes; and the successful delivery of a wonderful set of games in our territory. That, of course, is not unique across this country. It goes on all the time. It happens with all kinds of major events and organizations. It happens at the municipal level, in different policing and security environments.
As I said, we are not cutting new ground with this. In fact, the parliaments of Australia and the United Kingdom have already gone down this road.
The example I gave of the Canada Winter Games in 2007 is not the only example of where we have integrated services, where we have ensured that one agency can work with, talk with, train with, and communicate with another. I've done that throughout my entire career, whether with parks or with conservation law enforcement and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, in reaching out to community groups and partners to form partnerships, and ensuring that what we were doing was always in the best interests of the client base we served, and not at all a discussion about one agency or one organization having greater control or responsibility or being better than the other. As soon as discussions go down that road, we forget the main focus and task at hand, our primary mandate, which is to ensure the effective operation of government here on behalf of the Canadian people.
I am not asking for integration for my personal safety and security. More than anything else, I am asking for integration for the safety and security of the dedicated men and women, be those RCMP or House of Commons security, of our services so that they can be safe and effective, and so that when they are on the front lines and are confronted with any kind of emergency, be it a violent threat or medical emergency or act of God or natural disaster, I can sleep well at night knowing that we have given them the tools they need to do their jobs right and that we have not denied those to them because we were worried about how it would be taken as one service looking better than the other.
I will stress again that the motion has absolutely nothing to do with quality of service of one organization versus another. We cannot allow ourselves in the House to be drawn into that kind of debate, because that is not the case. This is 100% about ensuring that we fulfill our responsibilities as a government to abandon any tradition that has kept us in the Dark Ages and from ensuring that Canadians are safe, that the men and women who work here are safe, that the people we invite here are safe, and that the primary focus of the House can be the task at hand, which is not focusing on threats coming through our door but on threats that are coming from overseas to our shores, and that we can focus on daily Canadian business with the confidence that the men and women here who are protecting us will able to do a perfect job so we can get to the orders of the day and the business of the day with pride, confidence, and comfort in our security and are not interrupted and not affected by the events that are troubling North America and, indeed, the globe, or by any other event that could arise here, and that Canadians can rest assured day in and day out that we are here in our House.
In conclusion, we thank the men and women who work in this place each and every day for what they do. We know what they give up to be here. We know what they have risked in the past and will risk in the future. For that, we thank them and look forward to giving them all the tools they need to do the right job for Canadians.
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but notice that in most of his speech, the member from Yukon preached to the choir. No one has spoken against integration. Every single member of Parliament who has spoken so far is in favour of integration. They are in favour of those services working together.
The element that was completely absent from his speech, which we are raising as a problem, is that currently House security and Senate security are working under the authority of the Speaker, who ultimately responds to Parliament. This motion would change that by making the authority in charge of security the RCMP, which ultimately responds to the government. It is a major shift, a major change. It is actually disrespectful of the members of our House and Senate security, who did a pretty good job during the events of October 22. 
If the member for Yukon says this is no slight to our House and Senate security, why does he want to place the authority under the RCMP instead of our joint House and Senate security?
[Interjection]
Ryan Leef: Mr. Speaker, this motion is very clear. The way it reads, the RCMP is going 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...”. Furthermore, although he said that this was absent from my speech but in fact it was not, I was very clear that we are not breaking new ground here. This has already been mirrored in other parliaments, such as in Australia and Britain. 
None of us in this room are security experts. We are here to create an environment for which the security experts can make those responsible decisions. That is exactly what we are doing. I do not think any of us here is in a position to start debating operational security decisions on a day-to-day basis. We are responsible for making sure that the people who are experts in this and are tasked with it are able to make those decision for all the reasons I outlined in my speech.
Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is truly astounding to hear that the member for Yukon does not really understand the questions we are asking him. We are not telling him that this is a debate among security experts.
The question is not about who should manage the operational security of the House of Commons and the Senate. The question is why a responsibility that currently belongs to the Speaker of the House, and more generally speaking to all of the parliamentarians who elected the Speaker, should be transferred to the Government of Canada or the executive branch. He did not answer that question and the fact that he did not proves that he is very uncomfortable and that the 10-minute speech that he gave, and that I listened to, is not consistent with the reality that the government wants to control the House of Commons security.
[Interjection]
Ryan Leef: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what to say to that.
The New Democrats want to hang on to tradition, which puts the men and women in uniform in this place at risk. They want to hang on to some tradition that puts Canadians at risk. They are abandoning all reason for a sensible and intelligent integration of services and the decisions being made by capable, qualified security experts and would prefer to have that decision-making ability left in their hands. 
We recognize that there is a need for change. There is a time for change. I know that change is terrifying for the NDP. However, let us not let change affect the safety and security of Canadians and the men and women who deliver that security for us here on the Hill.
David Wilks: Mr. Speaker, going back to the integration part of the issue, I hear what everyone is saying here, but at the end of the day, this is about sharing information. It is a real challenge as we sit here today with the multitude of different silos available to us to share information quickly and efficiently. That is the challenge here.
From the perspective of the communication difficulties between the different silos, does the member not believe that would improve in the future if the motion moved forward today, not taking away anything from what is in existence today?
[Interjection]
Ryan Leef: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague certainly has a lot of experience as a former member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
As he mentioned, integration is about improvements in communication, co-ordination, and clarification of roles, joint training, joint briefings, information sharing, intelligence sharing, and established chains of command and reporting. These are all of things I talked about in my speech.
Of course, when we do that, things will only get better. They are already good. Again, we are not painting a picture of one organization being better than the other. As I said, it is not about that; this is about making sure that they work together. 
When they work together effectively with the tools we can give them, they are bound to become the absolute best parliamentary security service in the world. We have a responsibility to give them that. 
It will improve the communications, their training opportunities, the tools and equipment we give them and the integration of those tools and equipment. 
What will be achieved by that? The Canadian public will then be confident that this place, their place, their home, their Parliament, is still available, accessible, safe and secure and that their parliamentarians are working hard, focused on the job at hand, each and every day, and not worried about threats running through our front door and about the men and women who are trying to keep them safe, because the Canadian public will know that we have done the job to give them the best security system on the planet.
Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify something.
When the deplorable attack occurred, there were security guards here who were unarmed. Nevertheless, they ran after the suspect armed only with extendable batons. That says a lot about how devoted they are to their jobs. They have the necessary courage and know-how. They did not let us down in any way. These people can be equipped and armed. They need to be. They also need more members on their team.
No one has explained to me why they should no longer report to the House. I do not see why I should ask the Minister of Public Safety and not the Speaker to relax the rules for visitors. We welcome visitors and people in the gallery. What is the process? Why should we have to go through the chief of police rather than asking our internal services when our visitors can be accommodated and what services are available to them?
[Interjection]
Ryan Leef: Mr. Speaker, I could not disagree more with the member opposite. I think some of the tools he outlined are absolutely what the men and women here have needed, and we have actually seen great improvement in that in the last few months.
I do not think the hon. member heard me talk at all about redacting anything they have. In fact, I have talked about seeing their training improve, the equipment, the tools, the accessibility, interoperability, training and communication just getting stronger and better.
There are a lot of assumptions being made, including some in the member's question, about what will happen. The operational decisions will be in the hands of those who lead this. It will be a joint decision, not a unilateral decision by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. These will be integrated, because that is how integration works, with discussions, planning, and priorities integrated. 
The assumptions being made that somehow anything will be stripped away are wrong-headed, or clearly not accurate. I do not envision any of this taking away anything from the security force, but only improving what they have. 
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that I am profoundly saddened by the comments I have been hearing from Conservatives since the beginning of this debate. I believe they are denigrating the heroes of October 22. These are security guards who put their lives on the line.
We have heard from the member for Yukon and from the whip this morning that they are just not as qualified as they should be, and that is why we have to have the takeover by the RCMP. 
Ryan Leef:  Not once did I say that. Not one time did I say that.
Peter Julian:  Let me just tell you, Mr. Speaker, through you to those members opposite, that our security guards—
Ryan Leef:  You are full of crap. Not one time did I say that.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. The Chair recognizes that this debate hits close to home and that many people are emotionally involved in it, but I believe I heard the hon. member for Yukon use non-parliamentary language and I would like him to retract that.
I would also like to direct members to avoid using language where the intention is to provoke a response from the other side. I think members can make their points without deliberately baiting one another.
With that, would the hon. member for Yukon like to retract that remark?
[Interjection]
Ryan Leef: Mr. Speaker, I will apologize for saying that the member for Burnaby—New Westminster was full of crap and--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. When a member uses unparliamentary language in this place, the Speaker needs to make a determination as to whether it was inadvertent or whether it was deliberate. In almost every case, the Speaker decides that it was inadvertent and gives the opportunity to the member to stand and retract that word or statement. When the member, in so doing, can only be seen to have deliberately used the term again, that is a far more significant violation of the rules and norms of this place, so I am going to very quickly go back to the member for Yukon and ask him to retract what he said and to be more careful in the future with his choice of language in this place.
The hon. member for Yukon.
[Interjection]
Ryan Leef: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, I did actually intentionally reuse the word, and it was intentional the first time I used it, and I understand your ruling on that and on parliamentary conduct. For that, I do apologize.
[Interjection]
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, my point is this. The security guards who protect us have some of the best firearms training in the country. They have training in immediate action deployment and VIP bodyguard protection. Our professional staff, the security guards who protect us, have the highest level of training. The government pretends that somehow they do not have the training that is necessary to protect us. It is simply untrue. We saw that on October 22, when through their courage and their action, with the quickness of the actions of former sergeant-at-arms Kevin Vickers and the bravery of Constable Samearn Son, we were protected by the security services on Parliament Hill. They have that high level of training. For members of the government to question that training is simply inappropriate and irresponsible.
The government has suddenly thrown this motion in. This was done without any recourse to the normal process for legislation. Normally legislation is presented so that caucuses can discuss it. It is presented earlier in the week. There are House leaders meetings when legislation that is coming up on the calendar is discussed. To be fair to the government, this is the first time in four years this has been done.
The motion was cobbled together on the back of a napkin. It was thrown together without any respect for opposition members of Parliament, who, as the Speaker just noted, would be profoundly impacted by these changes. It was done with disrespect and in a hurried manner. That is why the NDP, the official opposition, has done its job and has offered an amendment that actually is what the government should have presented in the first place, an approach to the integration of security that does not have the sense of a power grab that we are seeing in today's government motion.
Members of the Conservative Party may agree that the NDP amendment makes a lot of sense. It speaks to integration. It talks about keeping the separation of executive and legislative powers. It would do all the good things without any of the bad aspects of this hurriedly cobbled together government motion.
We have been told by the whip of the Conservative party that Conservative members will not have the right to vote on the amendment. There will be no free vote. There will be no ability of members of Parliament on the Conservative side to represent their constituents' interests and the best interests of the country. They are being forced to vote for a hurriedly cobbled together motion that would have profound negative impacts. Let us talk about these impacts.
First, the heroes of October 22 laid their lives on the line. This would be nothing less than a demotion of those security services. I have talked about the level of training they receive, which is some of the best available in the entire country, yet the Conservatives are saying that it is simply not good enough. Now it will be changed, and they will bring in the RCMP. It is absolutely absurd. That flies in the face of what was the real impact of October 22, which was that we saw how well prepared our security services are. 
We certainly need that integration. There is no question there. We support that. That is why our amendment clearly calls for executing without delay plans to fully integrate the work of all partners. Everyone understands that. However, this would be nothing less than a demotion of our security that has done such a fantastic job of protecting us as members of Parliament.
Second, and this is a little more ominous, is that the RCMP has already stated that it is not ready to take over Parliament's security. In a memo that was obtained by  The Globe and Mail, RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson cautioned that there is still so much work to do before determining even what form this should take on Parliament Hill. 
This hurriedly thrown together motion, cobbled on the back of a napkin, came out of the Prime Minister's Office. The Prime Minister is driving this. It is not the Speaker. It is not Parliament. There has not been any consultation whatsoever. The Prime Minister has just decided to use the strategic opportunity of October 22. These are words that come back often. In fact, the advisers around the Prime Minister were saying, as the events were unfolding on October 22, that this was a great strategic opportunity. 
Instead of having the consultations, getting people together, with Senate security and Parliament and House of Commons security, to actually put in place an effective security plan, the Prime Minister is driving this through under closure, with no appropriate notice, and with no time for caucuses to even consult on this motion. He is driving it through. The RCMP indicates that it is not even ready to do this. How irresponsible is this? What kind of prime minister would drive forward with an agenda, when the agency he is trying to push into place has said very clearly that it is not ready?
There is a third and more ominous aspect overshadowing the rapid, bulldozer attempt by the government to ram this through over what is good common sense, good operational practice, and even democratic norms. Conservative senators are now openly saying that they are going to cut off access to Parliament Hill. There is now going to be new screening down on Wellington Street. They are openly saying that the front lawn of Canada, right in front of the Centre Block, will no longer be the front lawn that allows people to come and maybe actively disagree with government policies.
If the government is planning to move ahead with the process whereby people are stopped, I guess for the Conservatives it has the interesting corollary of actually being able to stop people who may actually disagree with the environment policies of the government, who may disagree with the social policies of the government, or who may say that they do not agree with the budgetary priorities of the government. This strikes to the very heart of why we are here. Canadian democracy needs to be defended. 
Canadians need to be able to express themselves. What the government is attempting to do, and according to The Globe and Mail seems to be quite open about, is cut off the access of Canadians to the front lawn of Canada. I would like to tell the Prime Minister that this is not his front lawn. This is the front lawn of all Canadians, and the kind of access Canadians should have to that front lawn is something New Democrats feel is sacred and is a fundamental value of our country that the government should be respecting.
What has been the reaction? We have heard from, for example, the president of the association that represents our brave women and men, who defend us every day, in the parliamentary security service. 
 The president of the association that ...represent[s] the Commons Protective Service, under the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, said in a prepared statement which members of the service distributed to some journalists, said RCMP command over security within the Commons would threaten the independence of Parliament. 
 “In the view of the association, the RCMP taking operational control of the security within the House of Commons of Canada would threaten not only the perception that Parliament makes it laws without interference, but would also have such an effect in practice,” the statement said. 
 “Such a possibility would be, in the view of the association, an indefensible and dangerous interference of government into the independent legislative function, as well as a solid breach into one of the foundational pillars of our democratic system; the principle of separation of powers,”... 
That was said by the brave women and men who defended us on October 22. That is a statement of profound implications, because it goes beyond what we have been hearing from the government, which I think has been dismissive of the fine training of our security guards in uniform, the fine training that is among the best training available in Canada, and that exists now. It goes beyond the issue of whether the RCMP is ready. The RCMP has said that it is not. 
The Prime Minister wants to just drive it through in the same way he has wanted to drive through so many other things that have turned into chaos and catastrophe. 
We need only look at the record levels of budget deficit. We see the number of bills rammed through the House that later have been overturned by the courts. The Prime Minister has very poor judgment. When he wants something, when he has a pet project, he does not seem to care about the impact on ordinary Canadians. He does not seem to care about anything but his own little personal political agenda.
Here we have security guards, who have been willing and, particularly on October 22, proved that they are willing to lay their lives on the line every day, saying that this is a dangerous interference of government that would breach a foundational pillar of our democratic system. None of us can say that more eloquently. It is even more eloquent when it is from men and women who prove every day how fundamental our democracy and the freedom and ability to speak is for them. It is so profound for them that they are willing to lay their lives on the line for that. We should heed their call because they have proven with their bravery how strongly they adhere to our democratic principles. We should be thanking them every day for the courage and bravery they have shown.
Instead, we have this motion. It is a slap in the face to those men and women. As well, we have had these comments, first from the whip on the government side, and following that from the member for Yukon, who denigrate the level of training that those men and women have. We know they have the best level of training available, and it is often given through the RCMP. We are not talking about people who have not received adequate levels of training. We are talking about people who have some of the best training, in VIP bodyguarding, immediate action, rapid deployment, and firearms.
The final false argument thrown out by the Conservatives on this, and they have very little to stand on, is that somehow this is something that everybody is doing. I can say right now, the mother of all parliaments and the Australian parliament have their governments work with the opposition to make these kinds of decisions. It is not unilateral. It is not imposed. It is not on the back of a napkin, and it is not in the despicable way that the government has introduced it today. That is something that the government should take as an example. When there are discussions on this, it should involve all caucuses; it should involve all parties. There should be time given to members of Parliament to actually discuss this. Instead, it got a bulldozer approach.
Let us look at our closest partners, our neighbours and friends, the United States. This is something that no Conservative member has mentioned. All of them should be aware of it, but obviously it is not in the notes from the Prime Minister's Office that they are reading from. The United States has had the same discussion in the past and decided to do exactly what the NDP amendment has proposed on the floor of the House of Commons today. The Americans had those discussions, and they decided that the danger, the breach in the fundamental pillars of democracy, was simply too serious. In the United States, they actually abide by the rights and freedoms that are guaranteed in their constitution. What they decided to do was exactly the opposite of what the Prime Minister is trying to ram down our throats today. What they proposed and put into place is the United States Capitol Police, a federal law enforcement agency created to oversee the protection of Congress, legislative processes, members, employees, visitors, and facilities.
Who, on the Conservative side, would be willing to stand up and say that somehow the threats to the United States are less than they are to Canada? There is not a single Conservative who would be willing to say that because he or she would look silly. Yet, for any of us who have been to the Capitol building, we know they have ensured that protection of rights and freedoms but ensured an integrated security system, and they are doing it without destroying the separation of powers. The Americans have managed to do that. Instead of having a Prime Minister ram things through, there was actually discussion in the Senate and the House of Representatives. They decided a century ago that the way the Prime Minister is proposing was a stupid way to go, an irresponsible way to go. 
That is why the Americans put together the United States Capitol Police. It provides for those effective protections in an integrated model. It ensures, as well, that those constitutional separations of power are actually maintained. 
It is no secret that Canadians fundamentally believe in their democracy. They believe that our business here is to speak to government legislation and opposition proposals, and to have that back-and-forth debate that is so fundamental to Canadian democracy.
They also believe, and they hold very strongly to this, that they should have access to the front lawn of Parliament when they disagree with the government or the opposition. Regardless, they should have access to that front lawn and should be able to speak truth to power without being stopped, or having line-ups that last hours while security clearance is going on away from Parliament Hill. They fundamentally believe that it counts to have democracy and that ability to speak out in Canada.
That is not what we are seeing today. Rather, we are seeing a rapidly cobbled together motion that profoundly contradicts anything that has been said in defence of it by the Conservatives. It demotes a talented and highly trained security team, and ensures—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. The hon. member for St. Catharines is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Mr. Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, there is no issue around an individual in this House presenting his or her position on a particular motion or piece of legislation. That is understood in our democracy. 
However, when the member indicates and repeatedly states our perspective on the security folks who work in the House of Commons and makes unfounded accusations about our position and how much we appreciate what security officials did on October 22, that is wrong. I would ask that you tell the member to stop misleading the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  Before I go to the member, I would once again ask all members of this place to be cautious when making their comments. It is already apparent that this debate has incited strong feelings, on both sides. 
The hon. member's comment is not a point of order. However, if someone feels that his or her privilege has somehow been violated, that is a separate issue. I would again ask all hon. members to be prudent with their choice of words. 
The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.
[Interjection]
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, after hearing the somewhat disturbing comments with respect to the level of training given to security guards, my point is that our security guards have the best training available in Canada and we should support them because of that. No point of order can change what the whip and the member for Yukon said, and they are simply wrong.
If the members on the opposite side really want to support our security guards, then all they have to do is vote for the NDP amendment. Rather than being cobbled together, it is well-thought out and in order. It also ensures an integrated security system that both sides are looking for. It does it without the ramrod bulldozing that the Prime Minister is proposing with respect to putting the security of Parliament in the hands of our security organization, which has stated publicly that it is not ready to take over.
This is a poorly thought-out motion. It was done with complete disregard for the opposition or other members in this House. Therefore, we call upon the Conservative members to disregard the whip on this issue, to stand up for our security guards, for public access to Parliament Hill, and for a security system that preserves rights and freedoms in this country, including the separation of powers. If they vote for the amendment, that will be achieved.
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, I recall that when the sergeant-at-arms and other members of our security were put in front of this House, every single member stood on their feet and supported them. That includes members on this side of the House. We absolutely respect and honour what they achieved on October 22 in our defence.
If we remove the emotion from this and begin to look at the facts of that particular day, it was a single gunman with a single action rifle. It was not multiple gunmen with automatic weapons, not a coordinated effort with multiple gunmen inside and outside the precinct, and it was not some sort of organization with nefarious objectives that was running a sophisticated operation against what goes on here.
If it had been multiple gunmen who were better armed and showed sophisticated signs of planning and executing an operation, the result may have been different that day. It is imperative that there is an agency in place that would potentially have to liaise with the military or interface with intelligence agencies.
 Mr. Speaker, with due respect to you, I dare say it is not the Speaker of the House who does that. However, we do know that the RCMP is prepared to do something like that. Can the member address that particular point?
[Interjection]
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just proved the point that the House should support the NDP amendment. The first reason is that the RCMP has said it is not ready.
When the Prime Minister tries to impose a motion on the House with no notice and when the chief operational agency that is targeted by this bulldozer says that we should hold on, that should give Conservatives some pause. That is why they should be voting for the NDP amendment, and they will have a week and a half to think about it.
More important, the member mentioned the security guards. We all stood in the House and praised the security guards. When they tell us that this approach by the Prime Minister is an indefensible and dangerous interference of government into the independent legislative function as well as a solid breach into one of the foundational pillars of our democratic system, the principle of separation of powers, we should listen. That is why Conservatives should vote for the NDP amendment.
Marc-André Morin: Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, I crossed paths with one of our security guards in the stairwell. I was a little distracted. He was very tall. I did not even see his face, and yet he said to me, “Hello, Mr. Morin.” That is very reassuring.
If there were a chaotic situation, like a shooting, I am quite certain this man would not shoot me by accident. The fact that our security guards know us, our staff and often our spouses is reassuring. They are the best qualified to intervene in the event of a tragedy.
I trust them more than some new recruit, fresh out of training in Regina, or any other person who is not familiar with the building, the staff and the members.
Would my colleague like to talk a little more about that?
[Interjection]
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.
Indeed, the most important issue here is what kind of training these people receive. 
I strongly disagree with the comments made by the government whip earlier this morning and what the member for Yukon said later today, when they denigrated that training. I think those comments went too far.
Our security guards receive the best training there is. It is the best training given anywhere in Canada. We are talking about training in VIP bodyguard protection, immediate action, rapid deployment and firearms.
This service is already being provided by people who know us, and it works well. They have shown extraordinary courage and have had the best possible training.
That is why we need to listen to them. We must respect Canada's democratic values, vote in favour of the NDP amendment, and of course, vote against this motion—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order.
The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, can I please say to our dear friends on the other side, do not take personal offence.
The motion from the Conservative administration clearly demotes the Hill security people. There is no imputing the personal views of any of the other members in this. It is as plain as day. It actually says that their employment will be looked after, as if they might be shuffled to other duties.
We are not reading too much into this in recognizing that this is demoting the people who put themselves directly in harm's way. I will never criticize the RCMP as an institution, and I know I am not a security expert, but I do know that a lot of RCMP cars sat outside while a gunman ran by. The RCMP did a better job stopping the Leader of the Opposition when he ran a stop sign.
[Interjection]
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. This is a very clear demotion.
For the Conservatives who say it is not, that they object and consider it unfair, they should read the motion as presented, a motion which the Prime Minister is trying to force through the House today.
The government House leader has said the government will impose closure because it does not want a debate on this. I know there are some Canadians who are very interested in this. They want access to Parliament Hill. They want to ensure we preserve our rights and freedoms.
Those Canadians who are listening to us today should contact their Conservative members of Parliament to tell them that this is very poor treatment of courageous men and women who deserve better. They should also tell them they want to preserve the kind of checks and balances we have always had in our system, the separation of power, as well as access to the front lawn of Canada.
Canadians phoning Conservative MPs in the next week will make a difference. Hopefully some Conservatives will break their whip and vote for Canadian democracy.
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the member speak all day long. Most of it is half truths at best. There has been no word at all about not allowing Canadians on the front lawn. In fact, it is exactly the opposite.
Why he would try to turn this thing around into something it is not defies logic. Why he would not think it is important that we have security all operating in one silo, as opposed to three, again defies logic.
It is not about replacing our current security people, who have the utmost respect of everybody in the House. It is to bring them under one umbrella. I do not know why he would be opposed to that. Maybe he has some reason that nobody else can understand.
Could he try to explain it?
[Interjection]
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will explain it. First, I will quote a Conservative senator who is driving part of this process through with the Prime Minister's Office. In an article in The Globe and Mail, he said:
 After calling on the RCMP to take overall responsibility for security on the Hill, the next step will be designing a system by which all visitors go through a new security perimeter... 
That may not be in the Prime Minister's Office notes that have been distributed to Conservative MPs, but that is obviously what the next step will be. This came out before the motion. Now we are finding out that they have a next step.
We have objections and strong concerns raised by our security personnel. We have strong operational concerns raised by the fact that the RCMP has said that it is not ready for this.
 It defies logic that the Conservatives would try to ram this botched motion through just because the Prime Minister sees a strategic opportunity after October 22, 2014, to impose his personal will on Parliament.
Wayne Marston: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friends across the way who are taking the time to listen to this debate. There is not a full House on a Friday, and it is a difficult time for a debate—
[Interjection]
James Bezan: What exactly is the relevance?
[Interjection]
Wayne Marston: Mr. Speaker, I have not finished, so the member does not know whether I am relevant or not.
The reality of the situation we find ourselves in is that there is agreement here. There is agreement with the report of the Auditor General, which said that there had to be changes made in our security. We agree we need unification in the control of our forces.
We act as part of NATO, where we go in with forces from other countries and we work well together. That does not mean we have to change the line of accountability from the Speaker's office.
This is unconstitutional. Members should spend some time thinking about that part. We are in agreement with most of the changes the Conservatives are talking about, but we are not in agreement with taking the line of responsibility away from the Speaker.
[Interjection]
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I will just cite, for the final time, for members the association representing our parliamentary security officers. Those brave men and women who protect us say that it is:
 —an indefensible and dangerous interference of government into...the legislative function, as well as a solid breach into one of the foundational pillars of our democratic system: the principle of separation of powers. 
That is not me speaking. It is the brave men and women who protect us every day. I would ask members to please listen to them.
Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the word is “pleased”, but I am really happy to have the opportunity to join this debate. It is clearly an important and very passionate debate about the integration of the forces on Parliament Hill for the protection of all parliamentarians and Canadians on the Hill.
As I listen to some of the motives that get impugned, I would say that there is not a person in the House who does not have the utmost respect for the work that our security forces do. We are profoundly grateful for the support they provided to us on October 22, and indeed every day.
While listening to the debate, I have been trying to think of an analogy. As I have mentioned a few times in the past, I come from a health care background. I was part of some of the change management work that had to be done. I will give an example.
I went into an organization that was treating people with significant chronic diseases. In taking care of patients, they would have dietitians, physiotherapists, physicians, and nurses all providing excellent care. These people were all providing excellent care in their field of expertise, but in isolation from what everyone else was doing. Just as it was here, that isolation was identified as not being in people's best interests. Accordingly, I think we are all on the same page here in agreeing on the significant need for integration and the importance of that. 
It was a really tough job to get people together, even sharing records, because there were independent practitioners, health authorities, and small business folks. How would we get these folks to work in the best interests of the patient and start to share the support and services together? We went through that process and then we had to decide who would be the case manager. 
When we were looking at that, it was not a matter of who provided the best service or who had the best training. Everyone was recognized for their important expertise in roles they brought to the table. We picked as case managers the people who were more integrated with the outside world, the community as a whole. The best connector was the person who was in the best position to coordinate the work of all the very excellent medical practitioners.
I do not see that as unlike what we are doing here. Who is the connector who will be able to connect the security to the wider whole? During this debate, I noticed there were a number of us in the House who are still a little jumpy. There was a huge unidentified noise on the roof of the building and a number of people all of a sudden jumped. What was that? 
Maybe some other people are not aware, but four days before the incident on Parliament Hill on October 22, my staff member was in the office and there was a plane going back and forth over the parliamentary precinct. She was very agitated. Obviously the plane was in a no-fly zone. She did not know what it was going to do. She phoned the Hill security, but how are we best to connect to that greater whole? That is what this about. 
This is about the security of Canadians and the security of parliamentarians. I have to say that the opposition members are showing a bit of a lack of faith in the Speakers of these honourable places. This is clearly like the situation in every province, where they determine whether or not they want to have a provincial police force or how they want to structure the police forces within their province and communities. These become negotiated agreements that are very reflective of the needs of their communities and what they are doing.
If we go back to the motion, with respect to the terrorist attack of October 22, 2014, it recognizes:
 ...the necessity of fully integrated security throughout the Parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill, as recommended by the Auditor General in his 2012 report and as exists in other peer legislatures; and call on the Speaker, in coordination with his counterpart in the Senate, to invite, without delay, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to lead operational security throughout the Parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill... 
The following point is important. Again, this is something that opposition members are putting out in terms of their privileges and immunities. It reads:
 ...while respecting the privileges, immunities and powers of the respective Houses, and ensuring the continued employment of our existing and respected Parliamentary Security staff. 
I think opposition members are presuming a lot of things that are not accurate. The motion is very clear about respecting privileges and immunities. What we are talking about is the need for greater connectivity within the whole. 
When I first became a parliamentarian, I remember being very surprised that the Senate security was very different from the House of Commons. Then I learned about the structure. I remember many people saying that it did not make sense and that it was probably in our best interests to have a coordinated service, but it seemed as though it was a challenge to make those changes. I suppose October 22 spearheaded these changes, but they are changes that I think people have identified for a long time as needing to come forward. 
The RCMP has connectivity with the broader intelligence that is out there. There is connectivity to resources. Again, this is not about the excellent work that our staff does; it is about the broader resources that are available in terms of extensive experience in security assessments, information sharing, and evolving threats. They have to deal with threats in many other areas. 
I think we are going to have a difficult change. There is no question that it is going to be a challenge, but I think it is an important change. I believe that 10 years from now we are going to be saying that our Speakers have done a good job, our parliamentary security is in a good position, and we made sure that we have the protection and support we need. 
We have to recognize that our security staff serve a variety of important functions, and we fully expect that will continue under the integrated security unit. All decisions related to the integrated security unit will ensure continuous employment and will be managed with full transparency. 
I will go back to my original example of a patient who is struggling with many different issues and is surrounded by caregivers. There may be family members, dietitians, nutritionists, and physicians who have to be integrated, number one, but they will also need to realize who is in the best position and who can connect to the wider whole. In this case, I think we are trying to do what is best for the security of the personnel on the Hill—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order. I need to interrupt the parliamentary secretary at this point in time, as the time for government orders has expired. The parliamentary secretary will have 11 minutes remaining when this matter returns before the House.
It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
National Day of the Midwife Act[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-608, An Act respecting a National Day of the Midwife, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): There being only one motion at report stage, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre:  moved that the bill be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The vote is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): (Motion agreed to)
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Rosane Doré Lefebvre:  moved that the bill be now read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to be in the House today to debate my Bill C-608, the National Day of the Midwife Act.
This has been quite the saga. I am extremely proud that all parties in the House voted unanimously at second reading to send the bill to committee. That was good teamwork, and it is wonderful to see that our Parliament can function and that we can work together on great bills such as the one to establish a national day of the midwife.
First of all, I must thank my colleague from Parkdale—High Park, because in the beginning, she was the one who decided to introduce this bill in the House of Commons. She brought forward the first version and began the debate with members of other parties in the House—Conservatives, Liberals and independents—and with experts and the people directly affected, the midwifery associations. I must commend the work done by my colleague from Parkdale—High Park, because she does not take much credit for it. However, because of her groundwork, today we are talking about a national day of the midwife.
I would like to provide a bit of background, because it shows that MPs are very good at doing the groundwork, representing their constituents and bringing their ideas to Parliament. When my colleague was going door to door, she met a woman belonging to a midwifery association who told her about the important work midwives do. She told the member for Parkdale—High Park about their intentions and the fact that midwifery was not yet recognized in every Canadian province and territory, but that they were working on it. 
Canadian universities have some of the best midwifery training programs in the world. We can also be proud of that. There are currently 1,300 midwives in Canada, and only 2% to 5% of the population has access to their services. It is thus very difficult and the demand is growing. However, every year, more and more midwives are entering the workforce, and we can only be very proud.
My colleague saw all that potential. She was determined that we should recognize the work of midwives and help them further themselves. She decided to work with people in her riding and across the country to establish a national day of the midwife. I am extremely proud to take up the torch and ensure that this bill is passed as soon as possible. However, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge her tremendous work on the ground.
As I said, all the parties in the House voted in favour of this bill. We had the chance to go to committee. I presented my bill to the hon. members of the Standing Committee on Health, where it was very well received. They also agreed to hear from witnesses directly affected by this bill. I had the opportunity to appear with the Canadian Association of Midwives and the National Aboriginal Council of Midwives, which also does extraordinary work.
I want to take few minutes to talk about the NACM, because this bill affects them a great deal. Access to midwifery services is particularly crucial in rural and remote communities, including among first nations.
Currently, when a women living on reserve becomes pregnant, the delivery process is not necessarily the same as in large urban centres. Here, the choice is much simpler. We can choose to be seen by a doctor, we can go to the hospital and be accompanied by a doula, or we can give birth at home or at a birthing centre with a midwife. We have a lot of options. Access to some of these options is still limited, but we have them.
For first nations, it is much more complicated.
A few weeks before giving birth, a pregnant woman has to be airlifted to a large urban centre. She is alone. She does not have her family, her spouse or her children with her. She is far away from her family during those final critical weeks. It is not only extremely sad, but downright terrible that these sorts of things are happening in a country as big and as rich as ours.
A good example that I was given was to imagine a woman who is giving birth to her first child. Like my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry and all of the other members who are parents, I know that you do not really know what to expect when you are expecting your first child. It can be extremely stressful. You ask yourself a thousand questions. You read books, watch films and talk to people you know to find out how it is going to go. The last weeks are extremely critical, as are the first few days after the delivery.
Women who are sent to large urban centres are alone. They do not have their family, friends, grandmother, mother or aunt to talk to and consult to find out if what is happening is normal. When they give birth, they are isolated in a large urban centre where they do not know anyone. They are not with their spouse.
The days following delivery can be very difficult. For example, a woman who wants to breastfeed may have breastfeeding problems or questions about breastfeeding in general. She cannot be with her own mother who could have shared her own experience. That is very difficult on these women. They return to their communities, where there is no connection to the birth or to what happened. It is extremely difficult for the family, the woman and the community in general.
We are trying to reintegrate the birthing process into communities, because about 95% of pregnancies are considered normal. There is therefore no need to send women who are preparing to give birth to major urban centres. They can give birth in their community with midwives. This issue is slowly being addressed, based on the province or area where the community is located. However, there is still a long way to go.
I am very pleased to see that all of Parliament has decided that it is very important to acknowledge the incredible work that midwives do. Whether we are talking about midwives in first nations communities or midwives in general all across the country, it is extremely important to acknowledge the work that they do.
Today I simply wanted to rise in the House to thank my colleagues for the good work they are doing and for their goodwill on this bill. I noticed that there was a significant interest in continuing the debate on funding for midwives and in perhaps reviewing the birthing process for women from rural and remote communities.
I saw that all parties in the House showed openness on this issue, and I am extremely proud. I hope that this will continue. If my colleagues once again vote in favour of this bill at third reading, the next step will be the Senate. That will be a whole other experience. For now, I would like to thank Parliament. Why not take this bill as an excellent example of how the opposition and the government can work side by side, and why not continue in this direction for future bills? 
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague very much, because this bill is very important. Like my colleague, I had a midwife when I gave birth to my daughter. It is such a wonderful experience. I was lucky to be able to do so. This bill is very important for women and as a way of showing respect for this profession. I simply wanted to say that she has my support for this bill, and I hope everyone in the House will support this important bill.
[Interjection]
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for supporting Bill C-608.
Many of my colleagues in the House have stopped me here in the House, in the hallways or even at the Standing Committee on Health to tell me about their experiences during a birth with a midwife. It is so nice to be able to share that experience together, so that we can better understand midwifery and what that profession entails, and see that it is an option. People do not have to adopt the traditional model. I am paraphrasing here because I think the hospital model is considered to be traditional. It is just great to see how those birthing experiences can vary from one person to another and that they are often wonderful experiences.
I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands. She is right: we need to reclaim the birthing experience.
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for this motion.
I am a father of six children, five biological children. My wife was proud to deliver five children with midwives present. In fact, for our fourth child, because we were moving between Windsor to Victoria and then on to Ottawa, all in the span of a week, we had midwives in Windsor, on Salt Spring Island, and in Ottawa, where our son was ultimately born during that transition, all with expert care.
I want to commend the member for pointing out, first, that midwives are professionals. They are trained professionals. They have been delivering woman-centred care for centuries, for millenniums, long before there were ever health care systems, and it is about time that they had recognition.
I want to signal to the member that I will be supporting the bill, and I commend her for it.
[Interjection]
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague opposite for sharing his experience with us. It is very touching to hear the experiences that some of my colleagues have had with midwives.
I completely agree with the member. It is fitting that we recognize the incredible work done by midwives by establishing the national day of the midwife here in Canada, as I believe all of us in the House want to do, and that we also recognize that these women have an incredible knowledge of birthing. Midwives go through a lengthy university training process and have incredible experience in the health field. They are recognized around the world for their services. They often give speeches in other countries, and they even go to other countries to teach all the skills they have acquired here. 
We are very fortunate in Canada to have such experienced health care professionals who have such a diverse university education. I thank them for that. 
David Wilks: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member opposite on this bill. When she came to the health committee with the witnesses, they did a fabulous job. It was very honourable of her to get to this point, and I am looking forward to it going to the Senate.
I have a significant speech I prepared, but I am going to stray from it a bit and highlight some of the points on midwifery.
In August 2013, the Cochrane review, which involved 16,242 women in models of care, including where midwives provided care through pregnancy, during labour, and after birth, and which has one of the highest standards of evidence, confirmed the safety and efficacy of midwifery-led care. It is very important to understand that there is a lot of data on this in Canada, and we are starting to get a lot better at what we do.
Certainly midwives save lives, some 300,000 women each year and 10 times as many infants. That is important to understand too. As midwifery evolves and we get far better at it, we are going to be able to save millions of lives around the world. It is thanks to members opposite and others who have brought this to light that we will be able to do much more in years to come.
According to the Canadian Association of Midwives, a little over 1,300 midwives attend approximately 10% of births in Canada. While these numbers may seem small, it represents tremendous growth. 
The practice of midwifery is relatively new in Canada, with the first midwives regulated to practice in 1994. We are only 20 years out since it started. As of 2014, midwives are recognized to practice in eight out of 10 provinces and in two of three territories. We still have a little work to do, but I am sure with the collective work in the House, as well as with the members opposite, we can make that 10 out of 10 and three out of three.
 While the government recognizes that primary responsibility for the provision and delivery of health care services in Canada rests with the provinces and territories, we remain committed to a strong, publicly funded, universally accessible health care system for all of Canada.
An evaluation of the midwifery approach to maternal health care in Ontario noted that midwives have lower rates of invasive procedures, fewer re-admissions to hospital, and shorter hospital stays. This translates into a cost saving of $800 per midwifery-attended hospital birth and a saving of $1,800 for home births when compared with family physician care for women with low-risk pregnancies.
Federal recognition of midwives will help to increase the value of this profession in providing maternal care services to women and their families as well as the potential role of midwives in promoting a high-quality and sustainable health care system. 
Maternal, newborn, and child health care remains Canada's top international development priority, and we are committed to working with Canadian and international partners toward the goal of ending the preventable deaths of mothers, newborns, and children under the age of five.
In June 2010, under the Right Honourable Prime Minister's leadership, the G8 launched the Muskoka initiative on maternal, newborn and child health, which aims to save the lives of mothers, newborns, and children. As part of this initiative, Canada committed $2.85 billion between 2010 and 2015 to help women and children in the world's poorest countries. 
Midwifery training and service provision is also a key component of our government's support through the G8 Muskoka initiative. Thanks in large part to the Muskoka initiative and subsequent global action, maternal mortality rates are declining, and millions more children are celebrating their fifth birthdays. Access to health care and nutrition is up, and millions of lives continue to be saved each year. This important work will continue.
In May 2014, the right hon. Prime Minister hosted the Saving Every Woman, Every Child: Within Arms's Reach summit. At that summit, Canada committed $3.5 billion for the period of 2015 to 2020 and renewed global momentum to advance maternal, newborn, and child health as a global priority beyond 2015.
Canada will continue to work with our country's partners to advance progress on international maternal health by investing in improved service delivery at the local level, training more health workers, increasing access to adequately equip local health facilities, and expanding access to services.
Since 1991, the International Day of the Midwife on May 5 has been recognized by organizations, such as the United Nations and the World Health Organization, to raise awareness of the importance of the role midwives play and the careful care they provide. A national day of the midwife would help to increase awareness of the value of the profession in providing maternal care services to women and their families, both domestically and internationally. 
Therefore, I support Bill C-608, which seeks to designate May 5 of each and every year as the national day of the midwife. I invite my hon. colleagues to do the same.
Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure this afternoon to support a good bill introduced by the member to establish a day in honour of the role that midwives play in births and the health of mothers, newborns and children. This day will raise people's awareness of the work midwives do and the important role they play in our health care system. Nevertheless, they should be authorized to carry out only those functions within their scope of practice. 
Midwives have an important role to play in our health care system for low-risk, healthy pregnancies. Women carrying high-risk pregnancies should be triaged. Still, midwives play an essential role overall in promoting health and reducing maternal and infant morbidity and mortality. We need to recognize and promote midwives' potential to enhance the well-being of women, families and society.
Even though midwives play an important role, they can offer only the types of care authorized within their scope of practice. Midwives provide specialized primary care for women whose pregnancies are planned and who are expected to have low-risk births. 
It is amazing to be able to support this today, and to remind all members that it was the International Confederation of Midwives that drew attention to the fact that in the millennium development goals we were falling way behind in the area of maternal, newborn, and child health. I remember a round table here, and that we were very pleased that the government was able to attend and to hear the words of the midwives and how important it would be that Canada get behind this important issue of maternal, newborn, and child health going forward. Now we celebrate the work of the midwives in their work around the world, not only in improving maternal and child health, but also in the fight against female genital mutilation.
As my colleague said, midwives have been practising here in Canada for as long as people have lived here. As the immigrants and the settlers brought midwives with them to the new country, it then became a problem. There seemed to be a turf war, and midwives were made illegal. They were practising their craft, but in a very uncertain time.
The Government of Quebec, in 1691, established three autonomous branches of medicine: physicians, surgeons, and midwives. In 1861, in King's College, a school for midwives opened in England. It was opened by Florence Nightingale, but closed two years later. It seems that midwives have somehow always ended up doing just what they do best, but often in an uncertain legislative framework.
It was interesting that it was Sir Wilfred Grenfell, of the Grenfell Mission, who began the first civilian hospital in St. John's, in Battle Harbour. It was staffed by nurses with midwifery skills from Britain, and the British midwives were the nurses who continued to staff other hospitals around the country.
I myself am hugely grateful that in the Canadian winter of 1973, I had the opportunity to go and learn midwifery and obstetrics and gynecology from the midwives in Barbados. I remember being very grateful that I learned these skills first from the midwives in Barbados, who really did believe that birth was a normal thing to happen, before I came back and did my rather medical-model rotation at a hospital where it seemed, in those days, that birth was taught as a disaster waiting to happen.
It has been an amazing relationship with midwives. In 1987 the Government of Ontario published its first report of the task force on the implementation of midwifery in Canada, and I was very proud that I was later asked, as the law came into effect, to chair the midwife implementation committee at Women's College Hospital in Toronto.
As well, at the international convention on midwifery in Vancouver in 1993, we were extremely proud to celebrate what midwives were bringing to us in the research community in terms of qualitative research. Hearing the narrative of women's experience in real qualitative research was of huge assistance to us in changing our ways and being able to move to what is now known as family-centred maternity care, the ability to create an atmosphere centred around mothers and babies, not the convenience of physicians.
After that, I was very pleased to see British Columbia bring in their law in 1998 that allowed midwives to register to practise. We seem to have gone on from there.
At this time, I would like to thank all the midwives who taught me so much. It is so exciting to have this opportunity to thank them. The Vicki Van Wagners and the Holliday Tysons and the Mary Sharpes and other people went on as soon as it was legal. They scattered across Ontario to become professors at places like Laurentian, McMaster, and Ryerson University.
I am so thrilled to have been able to see in practice the new birthing centre on Dundas in Toronto, run by the Seventh Generation Midwives of Toronto, with the beautiful birthing rooms designed by Christi Belcourt, the amazing Métis artist, who was able to put an indigenized approach to midwifery right in the core of Toronto. It makes us all so proud.
Research is imperative, as always. Midwives have always been very keen on the research that accompanies the process. At the centre it was interesting to see the transfer rates, the triage indicators of acceptable clients, and the ability to carry through the birth in a good, safe way being documented. It is extraordinarily good research.
The original goal in Ontario was to give women and their families real choices about where they would want to give birth, whether in their home, in a birthing centre, or in the hospital. Those choices are now there.
As the critic for aboriginal affairs, I was equally thrilled when the first students were admitted into the midwifery program at Tsi Non:we lonnakeratstha Ona:grahsta' on the Six Nations in Ohsweken, Ontario. With this three-year program of 10 months of academic and clinical practice each year, we are finally able to have indigenous midwives practise in indigenous ways, which speaks to the medicine wheel instead of the medical model.
We on this side of the House are very pleased to accept this bill, and we will be celebrating the first national day to acknowledge midwives along with everyone else in this House.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to once again thank my colleagues in the House, including my Conservative colleague from Kootenay—Columbia and my Liberal colleague from St. Paul's. They have just given excellent speeches about what midwifery is, the impact it has on our society and all of the positive effects it has on the health of the mother and the child.
I would also like to thank all of my colleagues who shared their personal experiences. It is really nice when we manage to pass something in the House, and to see that we all agree on a bill that seeks to advance an issue as important as midwifery in Canada.
I would therefore like to thank my colleagues on all sides of the House, on the government side, the Liberal side and all of the independent members. The vote was unanimous. I hope that this will happen again. Let us continue to work together like this on important issues in the hopes that we can continue to make a lot of progress in the future.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): It being 2:03 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, February 16, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:03 p.m.)