Evidence of meeting #51 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rcmp.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Marc Bosc  Acting Clerk, House of Commons
Kevin Vickers  Sergeant-at-Arms, House of Commons
Patrick McDonell  Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms and Director General, Security Services, House of Commons

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

That was a four and a half minute question.

I'll allow a brief answer, please.

11:40 a.m.

Sergeant-at-Arms, House of Commons

Kevin Vickers

Mr. Chair, I think it's important for everybody to know that in our whole security posture on the Hill, first and foremost the issue of parliamentary privilege, I'd like to reassure the member, is the pierre angulaire. That's the cornerstone of everything we do in security.

To go to the member's question, I think it's important for members to know that each and every morning the RCMP, House of Commons security services, CSIS, and Ottawa city police have a conference call. In that conference call we go over everything. We do literally a threat and risk assessment of any threats to the precinct and to members each and every day. Then our security posture is either raised or lowered, or maintained, based on that threat and risk assessment.

For example, should there be a heightened incident going on somewhere that we're concerned about, what we do is we put more plainclothes armed officers out among the precinct. That doesn't interfere with everybody else, but the security posture is raised in congruence to that threat and risk assessment that's done on a daily basis.

We've been successful, I guess, in responding to increased security threats through a discreet and measured way, which keeps Parliament open to Canadians and to everyone so that no one is unduly concerned or impeded, by doing just that: a threat and risk assessment and establishing a security posture for the day that's congruent to that threat and risk assessment.

I hope that answers your question.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

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

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB

In response to Mr. MacKenzie, you mentioned that when we have these types of visits there's always a member of the House security team with the RCMP members in order to help to ensure that members are being recognized. Obviously it appears that in this case that didn't happen.

When Mr. Godin was here, he may have indicated exactly where the incident took place, but can you maybe refresh me on where exactly the incident took place and why in fact there wasn't a member of the House security there? It appears that must have been the case, or they would have intervened to indicate that this was a member of Parliament.

Can you refresh my memory on that and on why in fact that wasn't the case in this instance?

11:40 a.m.

Sergeant-at-Arms, House of Commons

Kevin Vickers

The member of Parliament in question was originally walking southbound on the west side of the Bank Street extension. He came up to the general area of the main entrance into the lower drive. He walked pretty well all the way over to the east side of Bank Street, was directed back across the street by the RCMP member, and then was detained or stopped there until the motorcade passed.

All visits have different security levels, from level one to level five. This particular visit was a level four. Our practice there is to have no pedestrian access at closed points. It's at those higher-level visits, when we have designated access for pedestrians where people's IDs are being checked, that we've been putting members of Parliament.... But in this particular scenario, this particular event, there was to be no stopping of pedestrians, regardless of whether they were members of Parliament or not. Civilians, everyone, had free access to the Hill. There was no predetermination that we would be stopping people or preventing people from coming up on the Hill.

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB

That probably underscores very well, then, the next question and point I wanted to make. I fully believe that you do a very good job of planning for these types of events. We always get the e-mails that indicate what the procedures are to be, what we're to do, where we're to go. I'll confess that I don't always read them thoroughly, because I've always kind of believed that if I have either a pin or my ID card with me, I will have my access as needed. However, in this case you've indicated there wasn't supposed to be anyone stopping that access to coming onto the Hill, and obviously in this case it did happen.

I do believe that you're doing a good job of planning. I fully appreciate what you're saying about having briefings ahead of time. Obviously in some cases that isn't filtering down. That appears quite obvious. It is a very small number, but any number is something that we need to improve on.

I'm curious. As a follow-up after an incident like this happens, or in fact after every event, what is done in terms of post-event briefings after these types of events to ensure that the procedures were all followed and to see what can be done to improve for the next time? Particularly, what is done differently when there has been an incident such as this?

October 9th, 2014 / 11:45 a.m.

Sergeant-at-Arms, House of Commons

Kevin Vickers

I think in particular for this question, I'll refer to Mr. McDonell because he met with the RCMP. He has been following this.

11:45 a.m.

Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms and Director General, Security Services, House of Commons

Patrick McDonell

On the Monday following these incidents when our members of Parliament were delayed, my staff and I met with assistant commissioner Gilles Michaud, did a post mortem on where this went wrong and how we could fix it. From the House of Commons security service perspective, we didn't expect them to come in through the Elgin gate. Our understanding of the SOPs is any time there's a motorcade level four or five or whatever level that will impede traffic and circulation on the Hill, they'll come in through the Elgin gate and that any delays will be very brief. So we were surprised to see them come in there.

The recommendation coming out of that meeting is exactly that: any motorcades in the future that will impede traffic circulation or pedestrian movement on the Hill will come in through the Elgin gate and likely exit through the Elgin gate, if possible. The options up on the Hill now as far as routes are somewhat limited because of the construction around the West Block. So the Elgin gate seems to be our best option.

Also—

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB

I hate to interrupt but I'm sure I have a limited amount of time.

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

You have no time.

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB

Okay.

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

I'll go to Mr. Reid. You have four minutes, please.

I'm not at all worried that you've opened the big book in front of you.

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON

No. All I'm going to say is that Mr. Christopherson was reading from the report, and I thought what he was saying was instructive. He was pointing out—to some degree it seemed to be from the wording he was reading—that the report was making light of the privilege to be able to go to the House of Commons particularly when a vote is under way. I just wanted to emphasize, and by no means am I attempting to chastise people here; I'm simply making an observation that I think all who were involved in this should be aware of their responsibility.

The privileges of the House are constitutionalized under section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867. They are constitutionalized as being the same privileges which members of the House in the United Kingdom would enjoy. Those rights specifically include...in fact, the first among them is the right not to be detained on the way to the House, precisely for the purpose of participating in votes. The reason for that was that if you go back to the time of King James I and King Charles I, the king was in the habit of arranging to have people be unable to get to the House in time for critical votes. The fact that there was a vote under way just adds to the importance of the whole problem.

I'm not trying to lay blame. I'm simply observing that this is the nub of what is ultimately the foundational privilege of all privileges, the one with the most ancient history, and it does have constitutional protection.

That's all I wanted to say. Thank you.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Thank you very much.

I have no one else on my list. I would like to thank our witnesses for coming today and sharing with us. You know this committee has done this before. We're looking at exactly the same problem, but again maybe with a new light toward a new solution.

We'll also have the Commissioner of the RCMP come to explain, and the City of Ottawa police will also try to come.

11:50 a.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

No substitutes: the chief and the commissioner.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Thank you. I'll go to their houses and pick them up, David.

11:50 a.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Good. You do that.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

And bring them.

11:50 a.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Seeing you have nothing else to do, you could do that.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Mr. Vickers, I don't want to touch any place that may be security related, but it's our understanding that the incident was captured on some of our cameras. Would it be a security problem for this committee to see that?

11:50 a.m.

Sergeant-at-Arms, House of Commons

Kevin Vickers

As Sergeant-at-Arms, my preference would be that such films that are critical to the—not the films themselves but the instruments that we have and the angles and all that, I would prefer to be able to give you that evidence or have a member of my team give it to you. It is a concern for me and for security. We would like to keep the different shots from different areas as confidential as we can.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

If we get to the point where this committee wants to see it, we may have to do an in camera. meeting Can we see it? Let's leave that at the moment where we are.

We will suspend for a couple of minutes.

We'll thank our witnesses for coming today, and we'll go in camera for some committee business.

[Proceedings continue in camera]