Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 9th, 2014

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you.

If I could pick up on the idea that Mr. Christopherson made reference to, that he doesn't want it repeated, from my perspective it's not a question of “if”; it's more a question of “when”. I don't believe that sometime in the next 20 years we're not going to see another incident of this nature occurring.

Are any of you of the opinion that you could actually coordinate something to a degree in which you could give assurance that it wouldn't happen again?

[Kevin Vickers]

My response is that we've had many, many visits since I've been Sergeant-at-Arms. Unfortunately, regrettably, there are two, one with Mr. Netanyahu, who visited in 2012, and this visit this time around, where this incident arose. I think all we can do, to answer your question, is to do our best and to again redouble our efforts to get everybody on the right page, so that under no circumstances could a member of Parliament's access be interfered with in coming up to the precinct.

Again, Mr. McDonell and I have already been in contact with the RCMP on some things that may be able to help us go forward, such as, as I mentioned in my opening answer, having a senior RCMP manager collocated with the Ottawa city police and the RCMP in the operations centre that oversees, to make sure that everybody realizes that motorcades just can't come in and stop the green buses and the members of Parliament.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

You see, I've tried to put myself in a situation where maybe I'm at the Confederation Building and I have to get up on the Hill for a vote, or whatever the reason might be. I'm stopped and I'm told that, for whatever reason—quite frankly, it doesn't really matter to me—I can't do it. How would I personally react?

The first thing I would want to do is take some sort of action that could possibly allow me to get onto the Hill. One of the examples I used the other day was this: why not have a number that I could contact to tell someone to talk to this person? Whether it's the Speaker's office or your office, Mr. Vickers, then there's a place where a person of authority can actually make that instant contact. If it's for the grounds being patrolled by the RCMP and the gates controlled by the RCMP, is there not some sort of communication link that could be established? If anyone claims to be a member of Parliament, there should be some sort of automatic...you contact the gate or whomever. How do we ensure that an MP, if he wants access to the Hill, will get that access?

[Patrick McDonell, Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms and Director General, Security Services, House of Commons]

All the RCMP at the gates, the entrance points onto the Hill, are supposed to have a book on them. Should an MP or senator arrive without their pin or their identification card and say who they are, the RCMP member is to take the book out of their pocket—not go back into the vehicle screening facility, not go back to their cars, as they're supposed to have that book on them, and we supply them with that—and turn the page to identify the member.

Also, in the last year, the RCMP have access to our secure ID, just a certain portion, a picture of all our employees and staff, in the VSF, the vehicle screening facility, so they can confirm through that software that this person or these persons do indeed work on the Hill. Further, their vehicle screening facility has communication with our communications centre. Often they radio us and say that so-and-so is coming up to visit or whatever the case may be. When they delay a person, usually a visitor, from coming up on the Hill, they'll communicate with us. We'll quickly check and try to keep that delay as short as possible to get the person up on the Hill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes, and I guess in most part this is my point. You cannot expect every RCMP officer posted here in Ottawa to have facial memorization of all 308—soon to be 338—members of Parliament. There needs to be something in place, I would think, so that if I come up to the Hill and I say that I am an MP, but I don't have my ID on me, there is something the RCMP officer can do in a relatively timely fashion to allow me to proceed.

[Patrick McDonell]

They're briefed upon being transferred to the Parliament Hill detachment. I was assured of this by Assistant Commissioner Michaud, with whom I've had lots of conversations. After this event, I had lots of conversations with him. He assured me they're still briefed on the procedure when MPs or senators arrive without identification or their pin, or if they have a question. If there's any doubt as to the person's identity, they go to the book.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Each RCMP officer on the precinct actually has a book on his or her physical body.

[Patrick McDonell]

Yes, they do. I should say they're supposed to have the book on them.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Bosc, you made reference to the fact that you've actually put a request in—or it might have been you, Mr. Vickers—to the RCMP to see if you could be of assistance by making a presentation or something of that nature. What sort of response did you get to that?

[Kevin Vickers]

I'm not sure if I've ever offered for our people to be there at the presentations, but as I say, going forward, maybe that's something we can do to enhance....

I have been informed by the RCMP, as Mr. McDonell just said, that all new incoming officers here are to be briefed on the issue of parliamentary privilege.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

There's a bit of time left.

In this case, Monsieur Godin has given testimony to this committee that he even reached for his ID and said, “I'm an MP”, but the officer said, “I don't care. Go stand over there.” He could have had a book in that pocket. I don't care. If he doesn't recognize.... He doesn't care that he's an MP. He's not looking in a book to make sure he is one.

Mr. Lamoureux has offered a suggestion. Is there a chance for us to put forward a hotline, or something, for an MP stuck at the outside to say, “I'm being held hostage by an RCMP officer”? Is there a way we can put some sort of procedure like that in place?

I don't ask very many questions here, but I didn't think Kevin got a very good answer in terms of what happens when he does recognize you but still says you can't go on the Hill.

[Patrick McDonell]

One suggestion that comes to mind quickly, and it may not be the best of suggestions, is for the MPs to have a speed dial into the House of Commons operations centre. They would just press a button. We would answer it and respond within a minute. That's one solution, not the best but—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Super. If that could be part of our solution, I'd like it to be.

I'll go on to Mr. Opitz. Sorry, Mr. Opitz, for stealing part of your time.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

It's okay, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for being here.

I'll try not to be overly redundant in some of these questions. I think all of you understand who has been briefed at the leader level and what they understand. The issue is how that is disseminated downward to the policeman on the ground. This is something where each individual has a different level of understanding, for whatever reason, and not all briefings are necessarily the same.

Do you have an SOP? I know it's in a book, but people don't always read that. Do you have a simple SOP? What we used to do in the army is provide soldiers with a card for rules of engagement, and things like that. This would be besides the little book with pictures of MPs, which is great.

To the chair's point, in this case the cop didn't care. He just stated that. The question is whether he was augmenting people on the Hill and whether he was familiar with the procedures on the Hill. That kind of thing needs to be addressed. Anybody who is being posted into some of these roles, even for a short time, could at least be given a little card indicating the SOPs or rules of engagement, that kind of thing, in order to address a situation very quickly—rule one, two, three, four, five, and so on.

The other issue is that the attitude of the individual involved also needs to be checked. Probably from the leader level down, there needs to be a little bit of counselling for that particular officer. He's on the Hill. He's in a different environment. He may not necessarily be in the community he was accustomed to.

We've had a lot of these visits. Right now we're talking about two incidents, but are there more incidents? How many visits do we have, major visits of VIPs and world leaders?

[Marc Bosc]

I can get those numbers for you. I don't have them with me today.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

It's a lot.

[Marc Bosc]

There are several.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

All we know about right now are two incidents, but we're addressing it.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You have two minutes.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I still have two minutes. Great.

I wanted to fire that out really quickly, in terms of the little mnemonic they may have.

Mr. McDonell, your thought about calling right into the ops centre is the right thing to do. It could be issued to MPs. They could program in the number. Should something happen, they could hit speed dial, and then the issue would be rectified.

On the other end, obviously, briefings are good. Redundancy is good in this case. A set of standard operating procedures that is easily accessed, one or two pages that could be easily digested, I would say, is something that would be useful to have.

In your committee, who's being briefed? It's all at the leadership level, right? How does the information get disseminated down?

[Kevin Vickers]

Prior to each visit, usually several meetings take place. In particular, the big one that's anywhere from a month to a few weeks before is called the advance. It is at that advance meeting that all partners are together and go through everything from protocol to security.

On the day of the event, and for the day of the event for the House of Commons for example, there's a comprehensive operational order that lays out exactly the itinerary of the visit. Again, with regard to parliamentary privilege, we entrust the RCMP to communicate with their folks for each of these visits.

I just want to re-instill with the committee as well that the clerk mentioned the master security plan in his opening address. We have an office where all security partners are represented. Everything we do at that master security plan, we always discuss and always take in the issue of parliamentary privilege.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Since I have one last—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

No, you really don't, but thanks.

We'll go to Mr. Christopherson for four minutes, please.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Again, thanks very much for being here today.

I'll pick up where I left off.

I had mentioned before, I think at a committee business meeting, that we do run the risk of looking like it's our egos that are out in front here and that we're all so important and how dare anybody stop us in the performance of our important business, but do you know what? As I said then, that's a risk we have to run here, because this is not about us as individuals; this is about the way we run our democracy and the way we govern ourselves.

This issue has been mentioned before, but it can't be underscored enough. The first time it can be traced back to was in 1773, when it was raised in Britain, and I'll read it, “the assaulting, insulting or menacing any Member of this House, in his coming to or going from the House...is an high infringement of the privilege of this House, a most outrageous and dangerous violation of the rights of Parliament and an high crime and misdemeanour” no less.

I don't have a lot of time, so I won't read them all, but they reiterated that again in 1780 and again in 1970, when they said any obstruction of members constitutes a breach of privilege and a contempt of the House of Commons. Again, as recently as 2004, there was exactly the same thing talking about access to the Hill. This was the worst case imaginable: there was a vote going on. When that member was stopped, every single one of his constituents was denied their representative rights at that moment.

I know you understand that, but I have to tell you, in your report, when you presented it, this looks like kind of an add-on thing: “Oh, by the way, while there's important security stuff going on, keep in mind that those pesky MPs can be a problem sometimes, so make sure they're taken care of”. Even in your document you state, when discussing visiting VIPs or heads of state and the potential risks, “while respecting the traditions and practices of our Parliament”, and then the next sentence states, “I can assure you that the issue of parliamentary privilege is repeatedly stressed throughout the planning of such events”. The rights of privilege and access are not traditions or practices, and yet that was the rubric that even you put them under. So I think we all run the risk of seeing this is as sort of something that's incidental.

Let's face it; it's a real-world problem. These officers that are on the Hill are doing their job. Their primary job is to make sure everyone is safe. At the same time, you're going to run into a clash, exactly as we did, where an officer was saying, “You need to stop there”, and an MP was saying, “I have my rights”, and boom, there's the clash. I submit to you that nobody needs to remind the officers that their priority is to protect the visiting VIP. That's kind of there all the time. We need to get this other priority on the Hill to be at the same level so that they understand clearly that doing this is a huge infraction.

That's why I think, Sergeant-at-Arms, it's important for you to be here when we have the police chief and the Commissioner of the RCMP here as we go through these again.

I have one question I want to ask, Chair, with regard to the current climate we're in.

Sergeant-at-Arms, you mentioned the master security plan. Everyone is accepting that there's a little bit of heightened security going on from coast to coast to coast and I would think particularly in all of the capitals, in particular the national capital. Things are going to get a little bit tighter, I would assume, given what's going on in world developments.

My question for you is this: How much more difficult will it be to maintain the rights and privileges of members of Parliament to have access to the Hill, while at the same time you're actually tightening up some other aspects of security? Not only do we have a problem in the current security climate but if the master plan gets tightened, it'll be that much more difficult. Can you give me your thoughts as to what kind of changes—and you can't speak to them in detail—those of us who serve here and people who work here, staff and others, can expect on the Hill?