Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 4th, 2017

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It's just the last piece of what I need in order to say that I'm okay with an hour rather than what I'm seeking.

If we're going to do it the other way, just make sure that when we do it the other way, I'm actually able to achieve what I would have been able to, had I not given up the right under the other proposal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Right.

Mr. Schmale, you were on the list.

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

I think my issue got worked out. It was in regard to the steering committee. If we were going to have one, I just wanted to point out that Blake Richards is not here so it wouldn't work for us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Right.

Ms. Tassi.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

With respect to Mr. Christopherson's remarks, I think that we have a lot of the same questions for PPS. Not only do I agree that when we're looking at the question of privilege you would have the latitude to do that, but we would like the same latitude because I think we're on the same page.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's good to hear.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

It's an important issue, so I would like to be able to ask those questions as well, and I support what you're asking.

I speak for myself. If my colleagues feel differently, then of course they will say so, but that's my position.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I would like to go back to Mr. Nater.

Have we dispensed with the estimates?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We're all agreed on the estimates. We'll make those invitations. We'll let you know when they can come as soon as we get a response.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I'll go back to questioning Mr. Nater.

I want to get a sense of how many days you think you need to dispense with the privilege motion, while we're having this conversation, because we've seen the previous witnesses....

From our perspective, this is not new. The question is, what are the specific facts that are before us? Obviously, we need the evidence of the members who were affected. Then we'll obviously get the response from the Speaker and/or the Clerk, the head of the PPS, and anyone else we think is appropriate. There may be video evidence, but I don't know if there are many more individuals to call after that, unless I'm missing something.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

No. I think you mentioned the key players in the situation. Some of it will be a scheduling issue, given the two members. We do know that the Speaker has a report.

I've never seen that report. I don't know if anyone in this committee has received those reports from PPS. I'm not aware of that. Those reports are out there. I think that speaking to those who wrote the reports, those who were involved in those reports would be worthwhile.

I don't think we need to spend a lot of meetings on this. I think the matter will be ensuring that we have the right people and availability in a relatively short period of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Just before I go to Ms. Tassi, the normal procedure would be to have the people who were disprivileged first, and it may give us more questions for the Clerk.

Ms Tassi.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

The only point that I would like to add, Mr. Chair, is that we all agree at this table that this is a very important matter. For me, it's not only about looking at this specific case scenario and getting to the root of that; it's also about looking at the broader picture. I'm already hearing from members of Parliament on different suggestions, concerns, and issues that they have.

I just want to ensure that when we take this on, we take it on in a way that does not limit its scope to this specific issue. We want to do the best that we absolutely can in order to determine that this doesn't happen again.

Having said that, I'm never going on record as saying, “this doesn't happen again”, because we're dealing with human beings, and even though we can do our best—that's what we're here to do, our possible best—that study goes beyond this specific instance. It involves ensuring that we get all the witnesses here that we need. I don't want to rush this, even though we have a huge agenda. The importance is getting everyone here that we need to make our best efforts and to do the best due diligence we possibly can to make the best attempt to ensure that it doesn't happen again. If we all approach it with that attitude....

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I'm going to go to Mr. Christopherson, but then I want to go back to Mr. Nater for some feedback.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm on that same issue, and it's music to my ears, Filomena. I think we are on the same page.

With that in mind, again, this hasn't happened in isolation. The reason a few of us have been infuriated—and Ms. Tassi has picked up on this—is that for those of us who've been around for a while, this is Groundhog Day. Some of us predicted...and you're right. As long as humans are doing it, there are going to be mistakes, but there seems to still be a core ingredient of preparation and planning and prioritization of access that just doesn't happen in a way that is as serious as the other plans they're making vis-à-vis providing security for the people on the Hill. That is what causes the disruptions. That's the issue, and that's what's making some of us absolutely livid. We just cannot....

I don't want to go on and on—we'll do that at the time—but what has really done it is that they make all the promises in the world when they come in, and you believe them, and you know they're sincere, but when they get into the business that they do, our access is the same as hydro needing to find their way to a pole. No, this is bigger than that.

The thing we desperately need—and this was my point—is a review from our analysts of incidents in the past, so that we understand the context. We can understand the things that work well consistently—and give credit to that if need be—but recognize that's not the area, and home in on where there is a consistent lack. Then, when we propose solutions, we can also look at these various experiences in the past and say, “Would the solution we're offering not only solve the instant case in front of us, but would it have resolved these issues?”

If that's the case, then maybe we really are getting closer, because we have a systemic problem—not an incidental problem, a systemic problem. Ask me what time it is and I'll tell you how to make a watch. All of that is to say that I think we need a comprehensive report. I know some of that work's already been done by our analysts to give us the historical context for what is happening consistently and what has to stop.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Nater has a comment, on witnesses in particular.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I take Mr. Christopherson's point as well. I know the analyst has that information and that will feed into the witnesses we choose to call at that point.

The first witnesses we need to coordinate would be the acting Clerk, as well as the two members. Typically, the person who moves the motion of privilege would be called—which would be me—but in this case I would suggest Mr. Bernier and Ms. Raitt.

I would note—and I don't know how we would find this out—that there were other MPs as well, according to the Speaker's ruling, who were on the other buses and who were also denied the opportunity to vote. We don't know who they are. Perhaps the government knows. I was under the impression there were other MPs. That is what was in the Speaker's.... I don't know who those people were, but we should at least provide the opportunity for those other members as well, who had their privileges violated. Whether they come forward or not, I guess that's another point. Certainly the parliamentary protective service would be a witness. I suspect that would come after the acting Clerk and after the two individuals, as well as the RCMP.

Those would be the individuals I think would be appropriate. Beyond that, Mr. Christopherson, you may have an opinion because you were here in previous Parliaments. Other witnesses may come through those discussions or through the review of past breaches of privilege, but I think those are the four key individuals. In terms of the Clerk, I don't know if it would be normal to have the Speaker of the House accompany the Clerk, or if it's simply the Clerk. I don't know. I would look to the guidance of....

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Can I suggest that for the first hour on Tuesday, we have Mr. Nater, the two people who didn't get to the vote, and any other MPs we can find through the whips who were hindered and who want to come, and then in the second hour have the Clerk?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

The only other thing I wanted to hear was.... I don't just want a document circulated. I'd like an actual presentation on the highlights of previous incidents. I really think that is almost as important as the instant case, given it's the repetitiveness that is the overarching problem.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

When do you want that by?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I am very flexible, but fairly early on, so we have a context.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

The report is going to be ready by Tuesday. It's in translation now.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I don't know. I would defer to Mr. Nater, but I think it needs to be near the one, two, three top things that we do. Whichever that is, I'm open.

Certainly, you could never go wrong bringing in the principals who are involved, but again, it also makes sense to make sure you do your historical and contextual work ahead of time. I'm flexible, as long as it's done up near the front.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Perhaps, at that first meeting, we ought to take the full two hours simply with the individuals who had their rights violated, and at the same time review that historical context. Then on Thursday, if it works for the acting Clerk, have him attend—perhaps for the full two hours—as the subject matter expert.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I think, however, that the Speaker should be with the Clerk, because they both play a key role in security, obviously.

Welcome back.