Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 8th, 2016

[Supt Michael Duheme]

I meant Centre Block, sorry. Thank you, sir.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Well, thank you for your ongoing efforts to make sure that the public still has access to the precinct.

Quickly just on another note, a lot of attention is paid to us here on the Hill, which is important, but I also think of our constituency staff. Will there be ongoing evaluations of how our offices are set up or any measures that we can put in place to help those people who are off site?

[Supt Michael Duheme]

That's the responsibility of the corporate security office, and that would be Mr. Pat McDonell, who is the Sergeant-at-Arms. The constituency office falls under his responsibility.

You could ask him that, if you wish.

[Patrick McDonell, Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms and Corporate Security Officer, House of Commons]

My name is Pat McDonnell, and I'm the deputy Sergeant-at-Arms in charge of the corporate security office.

We have a project team that looks after constituency office security. We have funds set aside for enhancements, if required, to constituency offices. We have contractors out there who will do an assessment of the constituency office, and my team will also from time to time do assessments of the constituency office security set-up.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

[Technical difficulty--Editor]

I think that's my time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks very much, Chair.

First off, my apologies, especially to you, Speaker, for being late. I was at another committee buried in room 112-north. I wouldn't want you in any way to think I was being rude to your presence, sir, but it was unavoidable. I got here as quickly as I could.

I know there's already been a shout-out, but I just want to mention also how good it is to see Mr. Preston here. He and I have a great history together on this committee. I can only say to you, Chair, that you have big shoes to fill, not just size-wise.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

He did an excellent job. Again, I underscore that it was his own personal sense of humour that got us through a lot of very, very difficult moments.

It's great to see you, Joe. I understand you're having a great retirement. It is well earned.

I'll be supporting this because it's the right thing to do in the context of the framework that's here, but I just need to take this moment—because there aren't many left—to say right at the outset here how much I strongly and profoundly disagree with the whole concept of this parliamentary protective service. There is a reason we have the separation of powers in a democracy, a separation between the legislative, the judicial, and the executive. Nowhere does that separation of power, in my opinion, manifest itself in a more obvious way than in Parliament and in the way we conduct ourselves in Parliament.

When Parliament has a crisis, we turn to you, Speaker, not to the Prime Minister. Parliament's issues are Parliament's. By way of background, I need to say that as a former solicitor general in Ontario, I was also the civilian head of the OPP, and I worked very closely with my RCMP counterparts. In fact, as a minister, I was invited to and I attended the training centre in Regina. I have the utmost respect for the RCMP. This is not about the RCMP in any way, shape, or form. This is about the structure of our democracy and whether or not this supports that or goes against it. In my view, it goes against it. If we take the example of the Auditor General, the Auditor General does not answer to the Prime Minister. The Auditor General does not answer to a minister. The Auditor General answers to Parliament, and only Parliament can hire and fire an agent of Parliament. That's a good example of that separation of powers.

I might also add that because of my background, I spent some time on the Speaker's security committee at Queen's Park. We actually visited here when we looked at beefing up security at Queen's Park because of some things that had happened. I understand the complexities we're dealing with, and how we have the city police involved to a certain degree, and then the RCMP involved, and then, as you said, at the front door of Parliament, it's the parliamentary security staff. Now we've taken two of those things and merged them together, and it's wrong. It's wrong, wrong, wrong.

Here's why, Speaker, in my opinion.

The RCMP are now responsible for determining what happens and for directing the only people in Parliament who are authorized to carry guns, who are now the security staff in the House of Commons. When I say that, I also mean the joint entity of the Senate. I have no problem with joining those two together. That makes all the sense in the world. It's this business now. I say this because I see this as a serious and potentially dangerous threat, not an imminent threat. As you know, everything went along, and on October 21, we had no idea that the next day the world was about to change from a security point of view. When you examine these things outside a crisis, it sounds as though you're just getting caught up in splitting hairs and semantics. I view this very differently.

To me, Speaker, it's a very serious matter that it's no longer you who directs this. You may at a certain level direct security within Parliament, but now the RCMP have a say. The RCMP will decide. The problem with that is that Parliament is independent of the government, yet the people who control the security folks around us and the only ones who have guns are the government.

To me, it's that crossing of the lines. We have crossed the line that separated the judicial, the legislative, and the executive. The legislative is now not responsible for its own security. Our security staff is now the responsibility of the executive. If you study your history, you'll appreciate the importance of understanding what has happened in history and what happens in other parliaments. Speaker, I saw your interview over Christmas, and I was really impressed, by the way, as I didn't know you that well.

There's a reason why we don't go past the bar in the Senate and why they have to knock on the door to come in here. It all goes back to people's heads being chopped off. It goes back to people being told that they're saying something that someone doesn't like to hear, so their heads get chopped off. We have had kings who have had their heads chopped off.

This is serious stuff, and really, I feel so bad and I think it's so wrong that we've now allowed that crossing of the lines, so that the control of anything that is actually the 100% purview of the legislative arm now is overlapped by the exercising of authority by the executive.

Again, it only manifests itself when you're in crisis. I hate to think that a crisis could ever happen, but the older I get, the more I realize that anything can happen in this old world. This business of how the Prime Minister now dictates what happens to the security in the House of Commons is to me the antithesis of the separation of powers. I know I'm not the only one. I know that Mr. Bélanger, a respected statesperson in our Parliament, feels exactly the same way.

I've left next to no time. I really wasn't looking for an answer. I just needed to get that off my chest.

Speaker, I don't know how far you can go in your thoughts, but I'd be interested in any you might have in the fraction of moments I have left.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I'm the servant of the House, so as the House directs, I will follow. Having said that, I think it's important to understand that what we're doing today, in fact, has to do with this. We are moving $14.4 million from the budget of the RCMP into the budget of the House in these estimates, and basically bringing those employees fully under the House. Mr. Duheme, the superintendent of the PPS, reports to me and to the Speaker of the Senate.

That's how it works within the PPS, but as I say, I first of all want to make it very clear that I value and appreciate your perspective on this, and it's an important perspective. As I've said before, if the House decides to direct me differently in terms of how I, on behalf of the House, interact on this issue with the Senate, etc., then so be it. I will take that direction as I'm required to do, obviously, but I think there's an argument that we have. I would think you'd agree that it was important to have interoperability and that it was important to have better communication and better unification within the precinct and on Parliament Hill. To achieve that is what has been attempted. If there are better ways to achieve it, then I think it's important to have a debate, and this is one of the good places where this debate could be held.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is the one time that I get to turn your microphone off.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Ms. Vandenbeld.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

We really appreciate the protective services and the fact that you are there not just in terms of the precinct and grounds, but also for us as members of Parliament and for our staff. We very much appreciate the hard work.

I'm a local MP here in Ottawa, so I'm particularly interested. I know that a lot of the money in the supplementary estimates is for the integration of the three different services, but I'd like to know a little more about how that integration is working with the Ottawa police force. When there are security threats, either to us as members or in general, from people who wish to do harm, they don't stop at the boundaries of the parliamentary precinct.

You talked about the same frequencies. What have you done in terms of integrating with the Ottawa police?

[Supt Michael Duheme]

The October 22nd incident was particular in the sense that it started off the boundaries, or the parameters, if you will, of Parliament Hill. If the incident had been on Parliament Hill itself, I think it would have been much easier, in the sense that for any incident on Parliament Hill we treat it as a national security matter and we call the RCMP.

We're working through the recommendations that were put forth. I've met with the chief of the Ottawa Police Service through different committees. I met with my équivalentin Ottawa during a meeting. This further meeting is about how we integrate all that together, because the very first step that we wanted was to understand how PPS was going to function.

Integrating three units is not done overnight. You have to put in a command and control structure. You have to make sure that the policy and the way you're going to respond are okay. You need to have a couple of tabletop exercises to make sure you're heading down the right track before you invite other people to come and play in your sandbox.

We're not quite there yet, but it's like anything to do with partnerships. You need the meetings and you need the tabletop exercise to hash it out and work it out.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Following on that, Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms, the security in the constituency offices obviously also has a lot of impact in terms of local police. In my case it's Ottawa police, but you have all the local police forces in every constituency across the country.

For instance, one individual may harass or follow a member of Parliament to here on the Hill, to their home, to their constituency. On the Hill it would be the protective services. The constituencies are under the Sergeant-at-Arms. If you're at your home, it would be under the local police.

How do these integrate? How do those different things speak to one another?

[Patrick McDonell]

We have an outreach program. I write each chief of police personally and I give the constituency office address for them to flag, and they'll flag it. In this new Parliament, we haven't had a chance yet to go out to all the MPs and ask them to share their residence address with the local police, but that's also flagged if the MP allows us to flag it.

The co-operation with the police forces to date has been more than excellent. If a person is brought to our attention, we immediately share it with PPS, or the touch-point for PPS. Then PPS takes it from there, turns it over to a specialized section within the RCMP, and they liaise with the local police.

Would that be correct, Mike?

[Supt Michael Duheme]

Yes.

It's important to note that PPS doesn't have an investigative mandate. It's strictly protection of the grounds and the precinct. We don't get involved in an investigation. We'll act as a conduit, if you wish, with regard to whatever pops up, but we do not investigate.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

In terms of our residences, if something happens on the grounds, would the local police get that flag and see instantly if there's been an incident, through the constituency office, through the Hill office? Is there a way you can make sure that is communicated so that they don't go in blind and that instead, when they see a flag, they would know the background or whether there is a particular individual involved?

[Supt Michael Duheme]

I'll come back to what Pat mentioned, that a liaison is done with the local police. Let's say there's a threat on an individual, on a member of Parliament. We'll ensure, through the intelligence unit, that the information is shared. As Pat mentioned, with regard to the red flag, if there is a call at that address, a red flag should pop up saying what's going on.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

In terms of our own personal security, are there mechanisms for members of Parliament and their staff to learn about ways we can change our behaviour or protect ourselves or take precautionary measures to ensure that we don't make ourselves more vulnerable than we need to be? Is there any mechanism for that kind of awareness-raising or training?

[Patrick McDonell]

Yes, there is a security awareness program, and there will be information sessions coming up for the staff and for the members of Parliament if they choose to attend.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Would that apply to constituency staff as well?

[Patrick McDonell]

The constituency staff could attend. The sessions will be in Ottawa.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

One of the recommendations should be that it's good to have some food in your office. My staff discovered that on the fateful day of the 22nd. I wasn't in the office that day, but they were there from 10 o'clock in the morning until 8:40 that night. Fortunately, they found a certain number of granola bars in my credenza.