Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 2nd, 2014

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

As I mentioned during my intervention after Yvon raised the question of privilege in the House, I too was a member of the procedure and House affairs committee with Yvon, and with you, chair, and we brought three witnesses forward at that time. We brought the Clerk of the House, the Sergeant at Arms, and the assistant commissioner of the RCMP. I can't remember his name, but I believe he was the assistant commissioner in charge of policing and protective services. At that point in time the RCMP assistant commissioner apologized and said it shouldn't have happened. He undertook to change or to strengthen the protocols within the RCMP to make sure that this type of thing didn't happen again, including consulting with the House of Commons and Senate security staff when a visiting dignitary came in, and to better review the member's handbook so they could visually identify a member of Parliament coming forward and have the handbook with them at all times. He also undertook to have, if possible, their most senior and experienced RCMP officers at the various checkpoints so they would know that members of Parliament do have the privilege of unfettered access to the House. Somewhere down the line something broke down. I suspect that the officer you ran into was either new, or certainly wasn't trained properly and wasn't aware what was going on—but it doesn't matter to me.

There's probably a reason why he did what he did. In all good conscience, he probably thought he was doing his job. That's okay, but it doesn't change the fact that they didn't do what they were supposed to do, and that's to let you through. So I think what we need to do once again, even though it perhaps seem repetitive, is to go through the witness list. Perhaps we should bring in additional MPs who experienced the same thing, but I think they're all essentially going to say the same thing that Yvon did, right? The messaging or language that some of the officers used might have been a little different, but the end result was the same, in that they prevented MPs from going forward.

I think once we get Yvon excused from here, we can talk about which witnesses we want. Without question, my recommendation this time is that we invite the commissioner to come here, and perhaps the chief of the municipal forces and whatever. We somehow have to come up with a protocol so this doesn't happen again. That's the bottom line here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Lukiwski.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

May I answer?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Sure, give us a quick one.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I mean, we're having a meeting and I want to participate in it, with all due respect, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I agree.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Looking at this case here, for example. The same person who dealt with me last Thursday is today at the gate. It's not a new person. I want you people to know that. I saw him today. He's there, okay?

That's one thing. The other thing is that the attitude of “I don't care” is one that we don't need around here. We care as the Parliament of Canada.

I heard you in the House, my dear colleague Mr. Lukiwski, talking about how maybe we have to show our card. But at that point he didn't care. I already told him I was a member of Parliament, and he didn't care.

I'm wondering, in their offices up there, if they have the privilege of the member and they see it every day, what is the privilege? That's something they could do about it. What is our privilege? Many of them don't know what it is, and they're around.

So I just want to bring to light what he said.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Monsieur Godin, we know we're in public right now, but if you know the name of the officer, could you supply it to the clerk?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I do not have the name of the officer, but I spoke to the Sergeant-at-Arms and he said that they have the whole movie: he has Yvon Godin talking to the officer, and they know who the officer is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Super. This committee will want to know that after.

Mr. Christopherson, you have a question?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes. Thank you very much.

I agree with Mr. Lukiwski. I can't imagine that anyone would be opposed. This is one of those issues where it's quite possible a whole lot of the public goes, “Oh, there they go again with their egos and everything”, and you know what? We're just going to have to suck that one up, because this is really not about us as individuals. This is about the rights and privileges of whoever is elected by the Canadian people to serve as a member of Parliament. That's what matters.

I notice from the previous report, Chair, that they can trace this back to April 12, 1733, where they said:

That the assaulting, or insulting, or menacing of any Member of this House in his coming to, or going from the House...is a high infringement of the Privileges of this House, a most outrageous and dangerous violation of the rights of Parliament, and a high crime and misdemeanour.

Interestingly, zoom ahead a few hundred years, and in 2004—lest anyone think this is just some archaic notional thought—the House said again: “Members are entitled to go about their parliamentary business undisturbed.” It further stated that the breach of this privilege was not only unacceptable but a contempt of Parliament, which is one of our highest crimes in this place.

The fact remains that when a member is denied access anywhere on the Hill or anywhere that they're entitled to as a member of Parliament, every one of their constituents is disenfranchised at that moment, because under our system we are the voice and representatives of all those people. If we're denied our opportunity to do our full job, then they've been denied—let alone the fact that there was a vote going on, which just heightens it that much more.

So I'm like my colleagues: we don't want to turn this into a total federal case, if you will. We have an awful lot of big issues. But I do think it does warrant going through the steps and then finding one more level of getting it across.

My thought was the same as Tom's, Chair, that this time, no assistant commissioners; the commissioner comes in. I think the Ottawa police play a role, so bring the Chief of Police in here. That's how you're really going to change it. Once it becomes known that this is a big deal, it will stop.

I agree; I can't imagine that the officer thought to themselves, “I've got my hands on an MP here. Now I'm going to show them who's got the power.” That's not what happened. But it's also unacceptable what happened to our colleague under any circumstance, especially during a vote.

If someone says, “Yes, it's security”, then our response is that those who are organizing it—i.e., the PMO and others—have an obligation to organize the visitors in such a way that it doesn't trample on the rights of members of Parliament. It's that simple and it's that important.

So to Yvon, I don't really have a question other than wondering if he has a recommendation or two that he specifically would like us to look at. Having been a whip, he certainly understands the functioning of this place better than most members.

That would be my question to you, Yvon; your thoughts on steps that we should or could take.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

This has nothing to do with ego. It's the Parliament of Canada. This is our democracy. We have a responsibility. We have been elected as members of Parliament, all of us, and this is our privilege. I will speak for the people of Acadie—Bathurst. I'm here to represent them. It's not about Yvon Godin; it's about representation.

It's not only the votes in the House. If we have committees going on and there is a vote that could happen at committees, we don't get bells for that. If we get called by our whip and told, “I want you in that committee”, I have the right to vote in committee. I have the right to make speeches in committee. I have the right to my voice. We all have that. It's our privilege. That's why it is so strict.

This is the place for making the laws of this country, and it's our responsibility to educate the public. It has nothing to do with us. It has something to do with them, because we are representing them, and that's what it's all about.

One recommendation that Mr. Lukiwski was talking about, and I took it really seriously, was that when visitors come in and they intend to block the place he'd maybe have a meeting with the people who are going to be on the site doing the security and tell them how they should proceed. It could be done in the morning. If the convoi is coming in at 10:30, maybe at 9 o'clock they'd get the people in and say, “Okay, here are the rules”. Remind them, because this is just—I'm sorry, but one day something is going to happen, and we'll say, “Look, it's because of what is happening in the yard”, and the member was not just refused access onto the Hill, but he lost his privileges on the committee. He lost his privileges in the House of Commons. He lost his turn to speak. That's why I am emphasizing that privilege be respected.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Yvon.

Mr. Lamoureux, go ahead, please.

We're going to try to stay around for five minutes so we can finish and do our other work.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

You know, Yvon, I do appreciate the sensitivity of this particularly issue. There's virtually not a week that goes by when I don't really get an appreciation for the privilege I have, as an individual, even to be here, to be a member of Parliament.

Having said that, I do know if I were to put myself in your shoes, or those of anyone who was being denied the opportunity to be where he's supposed to be to fulfill his responsibilities, it would be very upsetting. I'm trying to think of what we could do to improve the system. The thing that came across my mind as I listened to others provide comment was that if I were trying to get onto the Hill and someone were preventing me from getting onto the Hill, I would like to be able to contact someone, maybe pick up the phone. We have 24-7 RCMP officers at the gate so maybe there's a phone number that you can just call and state your name and say you are having a problem, and ask if someone can come. Do you know what I mean?

Is there an answer? It seems to me that this comes up periodically, and no matter how many times we have briefings and so forth, maybe the real answer is that we need to have someone inside who we can just contact to say we're having a problem, and that would initiate a call to the Speaker's office so nothing would take place inside the Chamber because they would realize that there was a problem with a member getting access, and that would heighten the importance of this.

I am looking for solutions, as you are, because I know if I were in your shoes, I would be upset because I had a right to be there and I would wonder how I was going to get there and what I should do. We all have phones nowadays. If there were a phone number I could call to get the Sergeant-at-Arms and the Sergeant-at-Arms could then get it straightened out, it would take two minutes and then at least I would have access.

Can you think of some ideas?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Certain aspects do concern me. First of all, the responsibility of the people who guard the House should be to let us go by. We should not have to use the phone. It could happen that the phone doesn't work, or some other such thing. It is up to them to see that this doesn't happen. When it comes to security, there are chiefs, people who are responsible, supervisors.

The officer said this:

“I'm following strict orders”. That's going further than just him. He said, “I'm following strict orders that nobody goes through”.

We have to solve this problem.

Mr. Lukiwski said that the person should perhaps have their identity card or their PIN. But what happens when a member does not have it, and he or she misses the vote and the vote goes the other way? I don't think that is the solution.

They have to be able to recognize the members. They even refused entry to the Speaker of the House of Commons. This is no longer a small problem. Some mechanism has to be put in place and it can't consist in phoning someone and reaching the wrong person. The member shouldn't have to start calling all over the place. Some mechanism has to be put in place for the persons who work at the House of Commons. There is no problem regarding the security guards at the House of Commons. At the door of the House of Commons, there is no problem. We don't have time to discuss it now, but even that should be examined. That day, because the red carpet had been put out, some members had to go through the basement in order to cross to the other side and go up the stairs to go to vote in the House. Perhaps the issue of the circulation of members within the House should be examined as well.

Those are the orders they had received. They told us that they would not stop us from going to the chamber, but that we had to use the basement. Some people use wheelchairs. Our privilege has been violated in the course of the last years.

That is what I had to say on this matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Opitz, four minutes please.

One other after that.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I'm not taking that long.

I know how this works. The RCMP is very much like the military and there are SOPs. This is a failure of leadership. They are normally supposed to be briefing their people. If they have new people on the Hill, then they're supposed to get briefed and know who is who. To Mr. Lukiwski's point, they should have a handbook on hand in case they don't recognize an MP. In this day of security threats, you can understand why the average cop on the street is trying to be vigilant. Nobody wants to let the bad guy through. But the fault lies with the leadership. There are standard operating procedures, SOPs, that they follow in coordination with the Ottawa police. Clearly that fell apart.

I don't expect the Ottawa police to recognize all MPs. When you are off the parliamentary precinct, whether you are wearing this pin or not, you are subject to the laws of all of Canada, for speeding tickets and things like this. In the parliamentary precinct where the RCMP have primacy, they are supposed to understand the standard operating procedures and what is supposed to happen. In the military, the leadership was responsible for periodic safety briefings, for example. Kevin may remember this.

Safety briefings are an annual thing, but probably on the Hill you would want to do them more frequently. You would have your briefing, go through the checklist and say, “These are the things you have to do, this is a privilege the MPs have, this is how they do it. If you can't recognize them, here is a book with a current list of MPs.” In fairness, anybody could locate a pin like this, right?

I understand some of the challenges the guy in the street would have. I don't disagree with having the commissioner in here. This was agreed to once; a course of action was laid out. It has been forgotten and not followed through. He needs to be hauled up on a carpet.

The way they work is also with written statements, as in the military. The witness gives a written statement saying, “here it is, this is what happened, such and such a date, this person, that person, that action”. It just helps corroborate the entire scene.

I think you are absolutely right that we have to address this issue, but at the end of the day I don't think we have to spend an exhaustive amount of time on it. This is something that I think lies with the leadership. When the leadership is called in.... I'll tell you, when the commissioner is here I don't think this is going to happen a third time. I think they will get a grip on it and put procedures in place. They should be mandated to have a quarterly briefing as to what happens in different scenarios: MP on the Hill, MP on the Hill with an entourage, MP on the Hill with a world leader, whatever. It's pretty simple stuff to put together. They've been through all these scenarios. They know them.

When they get new people on the Hill, somebody has to show him the ropes and give him that briefing. If that doesn't happen, you can't fault that one constable, he is trying to do his job, he just didn't understand the ramifications of what he stopped you from doing.

In fairness to them, I think we should all carry our ID cards and our pins, ideally.

If they don't they need to be briefed ahead of time on the rules, especially if somebody assumes a new post on the Hill, they should be briefed immediately when they arrive. That's it. That's all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Monsieur Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

On some of the stuff I could agree with you, and on some, I don't. Their job is to protect us. When the pages come here to work on the Hill, they already have to know 75% of the members before they come into the House of Commons. When we do our first vote, the Clerk of the House knows the 308 members of Parliament on the first call of the vote. If they have responsibility for security on the Hill, then they should know who they're dealing with.

The attitude of the officer was that he was not just doing his job, but he said he didn't care about the member of Parliament. He didn't care about Parliament. He didn't care about the vote. That attitude has to be looked at by the force, that you don't deal with people in that way. Okay? We're not 9-1-1. We're not terrorists. We're the members of Parliament who have been elected by the people and the citizens of this country to be in the House of Commons and to make laws for our country, and to keep our democracy at its best.

I'll stop here.

I hope you do the right thing and do a good job on it, because even if you bring the leader of the RCMP in, I am sure that when we dealt with it in 2012 the leader knew what was happening, and he didn't have to come here to do his job. When it was done during Bill Blaikie's time, he knew what was happening, and he didn't have to be brought in. I hope he's brought in and he knows what the responsibilities are, and when they take responsibility for coming onto the site of Parliament, they know that they have a job to do.

My privilege and the privilege of all the members who have to go through was violated that day, and that was wrong. This is our privilege.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Lukiwski, go ahead very quickly and then we'll wrap up, because I have to get a witness list from you all.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

It should take less than 60 seconds. I was going to say it in my first intervention, but I forgot. Thankfully, David reminded me when he gave some historical perspective on this.

While it's true that the member of Parliament's privilege has been impugned here, more importantly—and David referred to that—the privilege of the House was impugned, and that is more important. I think when we write the report, that has to be in there. People think it's our egos at work; it's not. The privilege of Parliament, the privilege of the House, has been impugned, and that's really the issue here.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Thank you, Monsieur Godin, for coming in.

Look, this committee will get to this. You and I both know we've done it before. It's not about fixing the blame; it's about fixing the problem. We cannot have it that members cannot come to the Hill to do their job, whether for committee or for votes or for whatever it is. We have that privilege, and we need to find a way to make it universal, to have unfettered access to the Hill by members of Parliament at any time. I'll give you the assurance that this committee will throw everything it can at making sure that happens.

Thank you for coming here today.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Chair, for me it's not to blame; it's to fix. It has not been fixed for the 17 years I've been here. There has to be a solution.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We'll give it our absolute effort to make sure it happens.

We will go in camera to talk about that witness list and our other motion from this morning.

[Proceedings continue in camera]