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?