Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 9th, 2017

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Speaker of the House of Commons]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to be here today as part of your study on the question of privilege regarding the free movement of members of Parliament within the Parliamentary Precinct. Thank you for the invitation.

As you said, Mr. Chair, I am joined today by Mark Bosc, Acting Clerk of the House of Commons and by Mike O'Beirne, Acting Director of the Parliamentary Protective Service.

My understanding is that members of the committee wanted me to take a few minutes to elaborate on the current structure and governance of the Parliamentary Protective Service and its mission throughout the Parliamentary Precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill.

Since its creation in 2015, the parliamentary protective service has been working to establish itself as an independent parliamentary entity. As members will know, the PPS is responsible for the physical security of the parliamentary precinct. While the director of the new service is a member of the RCMP, the parliamentary protective service is legally separate from the RCMP, and the director is directly accountable to the Speakers of both Houses of Parliament.

For the House of Commons, it is my role as Speaker to determine the objectives, priorities, and goals relating to the security of the precinct. This is done in consultation with the director of the PPS. In turn, the director works with the House administration to define our security and access requirements. In this regard, the corporate security office acts as our liaison and main point of contact with the parliamentary protective service.

Pursuant to the Parliament of Canada Act, the governance of the new service was given to the Speakers of the Senate and of the House of Commons. Through the memorandum of understanding signed in 2015, it was determined that:

[...] the authority of the Parliamentary Precinct is vested in the Speaker of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Commons, as the custodians of the privileges and rights of the Members.

The Director of PPS is consulted by both Speakers when setting objectives and priorities, and the director is also responsible for planning, managing and controlling operational parliamentary security.

At the core of its mandate, the parliamentary protective service must provide for the security of all members, while respecting the privileges, rights, immunities, and powers of the House of Commons and the Senate. As indicated in the memorandum of understanding, the parliamentary protective service shall “be sensitive and responsive to, and act in accordance with, the privileges, rights, immunities and powers of the Senate and the House of Commons and their Members”.

Those privileges, rights, immunities, and powers include the right of members of the House of Commons to unimpeded access to Parliament Hill and the parliamentary precinct at all times and for all purposes. In addition, members of the PPS must not deny or delay access to a member and are expected to identify members by visual recognition. In doing so they may rely on the directory of members of the House of Commons or on their own knowledge. Failing this, they are to look for the member's pin, and if not in view, ask to see their House of Commons identification card, or any other piece of identification. I think we can assume that means normally government identification, of course government-issued ID.

While I know the Parliamentary Protective Service is working hard to ensure the protection of all members of Parliament, there is still room for improvement on how best this can be achieved. I look forward to an upcoming report from this committee, so that security services can be improved and long-term solutions can be implemented.

Both I and the Speaker of the Senate will continue to work closely with PPS on any recommendations coming from the committee or the House.

In closing, I am confident that Superintendent Mike O'Beirne, acting director of the parliamentary protective service, will be more than pleased to make himself available to the committee throughout your study in order to help you with your deliberations and answer any questions you may have.

Mr. Chair, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. If you agree, I will give the floor to the acting director of the parliamentary protective service for a few comments. Then, I would be happy to answer questions from members of the committee—unless you want to deal with my questions first and wait to deal with him later, whichever you like.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

How long are your remarks, Mr. O'Beirne?

[Superintendent Mike O'Beirne, Acting Director, Parliamentary Protective Service]

Mr. Chair, they are probably about six minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

What is the committee's will?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

It's probably helpful to hear his comments first.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay.

Mr. O'Beirne, you are on.

[Supt Mike O'Beirne]

I would like to begin by thanking the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the parliamentary privilege issue stemming from an incident that occurred on March 22, 2017.

I'd like to start by stating that the parliamentary protective service remains committed to ensuring that the rights, privileges, and immunities afforded to parliamentarians remain protected. In the execution of our physical security mandate—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I apologize for interrupting. Is there a copy of the remarks?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

No, we don't have a copy.

Carry on.

[Supt Mike O'Beirne]

In the execution of our physical security mandate throughout the precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill, we strive to uphold the doctrine of privilege so as to ensure that the integrity of both Houses is protected from outside influences attempting to alter the proceedings of Parliament.

With that, I will now provide an overview of the events leading up to the incident that has raised the question of privilege, occurring on March 22, 2017.

As you all know, our operating environment is complex, and that is only amplified by the evolving nature of the global and domestic threat environment.

In the end, I can offer no excuse for the delay, and I accept all responsibility.

On March 22, the PPS was in the process of making necessary adjustments to and operationalizing a security posture to support the tabling of budget 2018 at 16:00 hours. With the primacy of security operations in mind, the PPS was striving to balance the openness and accessibility of the grounds, which included the unobstructed access of parliamentarians and ensuring that the freedoms associated with the press were maintained, with the critical need to ensure that the posture reflected the needs of the global threat environment.

I would now like to focus on the circumstances surrounding the point of order that was tabled by members of Parliament Raitt and Bernier.

The issue of privilege was raised as a result of delays these two MPs experienced because of the temporary closure of the vehicle screening facility on March 22. As a result of this delay, the two MPs were late for a procedural affairs vote that was occurring in the House of Commons.

It was initially believed that the closure of the VSF and resulting delays stemmed from the movement of the Prime Minister's motorcade; however, it was later concluded, based on documented timings of the Prime Minister's motorcade movements on that day, that the delay was in fact caused by the arrival of the media bus and the security motorcade that was escorting the bus, under the parliamentary protective service escort, on the grounds, to continue and maintain the continuity from the budget lockdown and destined for the budget announcement.

As the media bus was transiting through the bollards at the south street entrance, traffic at the VSF was erroneously paused for approximately eight minutes. According to the communications centre camera footage, this closure impacted the movements of three parliamentary buses arriving between 15:48 and 15:54 and departing the VSF between 15:56 and 15:57. We can confirm that the three buses were impacted by the closure of the vehicle screening facility.

The reason that the vehicle screening facility is paused is strictly for vehicular safety reasons, so as to avoid collisions between the VSF, which is very proximate to the south Sank bollards exit.... That exit was used due to the large media bus that was transiting through. It was a coach bus. It's also used for articulated construction vehicles or larger construction vehicles, as the turning radius and ground clearance at other entrances can be impediments. During these delays, the PPS can confirm that it was directly associated with this event.

On March 24, the PPS undertook a review of the additional footage from the command centre that corroborates the interaction that took place between MP Bernier and the PPS member when the MP approached the PPS to seek clarification as to why the buses were not being permitted through the VSF.

Unfortunately, MP Bernier was told that the causes of the delay were unknown. So Mr. Bernier returned to the bus shelter located on lower drive at the Bank Street extension. The PPS can confirm that this interaction took place between 3:53 p.m. and 3:54 p.m., concurrent to the bus delays owing to the temporary closure of the vehicle screening facility.

Based on the investigation that the PPS conducted into the question of privilege surrounding this incident, which included a thorough review of OCC camera footage, the acquisition of timings associated with the movements of the PM's motorcades, and interviews with the PPS employees involved, the PPS concluded that the delays experienced on March 22 were due to the erroneous and extended temporary closure of the VSF in order to accommodate the movement of the media bus up to Centre Block in time for the budget announcement that was scheduled for 16:00 hours.

In light of this conclusion, the PPS would like to apologize to MP Raitt and MP Bernier for the delays they experienced and the subsequent impacts that this delay caused, and to reiterate the PPS's commitment to uphold the doctrine of parliamentary privilege by ensuring their unfettered and unimpeded access to their House, especially for votes. The PPS remains committed to ensuring that the rights, powers, and immunities afforded to parliamentarians are protected while balancing the physical security requirements necessitated by the unique needs of our operating environment, which is defined by the evolving needs of the domestic and global threat environment.

I'd now like to take just a few moments to outline the steps that were taken prior to and also after the incident to prevent a reoccurrence.

In addition to our existing training curriculum for PPS personnel, which provides all PPS recruits with an overview of parliamentary privilege and the democratic necessity of ensuring full adherence to this doctrine throughout the execution of our mandate, the PPS has also developed, in consultation with both administrations, a parliamentary privilege pamphlet, which is shared with its partners who are operating within the precinct in support of PPS for major operations. Information on parliamentary privilege is reiterated at all operational briefings and remains included in all operational plans.

However, the PPS remains committed to improvements, and the unfortunate events of March 22 remind us that there exists an opportunity to further enhance our efforts to ensure that all PPS employees are familiar with the doctrine of privilege and its application throughout the PPS operating environment. As such, the PPS continues to develop ways, in partnership with the House of Commons administration, to improve our existing curriculum and to expand on our awareness familiarization efforts, so as to ensure incidents of this nature are prevented in the future. In addition, from an operational perspective, the PPS has also formalized the process that will include an overarching radio broadcast to all PPS personnel on the frequencies to alert PPS members of a pending vote, so that all measures can be taken to ensure unfettered access.

In closing, and as acting director of the parliamentary protective service, I'd like to once again extend my apologies to MP Raitt and MP Bernier, and in fact to the broader institution of Parliament, for the unnecessary delays they experienced. I'd also like to express my gratitude to all committee members for the opportunity to be here today. Despite the circumstances surrounding this appearance, it has provided the PPS with the chance to further enhance our commitment, ensuring that we remain accountable to a mandate that exceeds physical security, but rather encompasses all elements, including privilege, that are critical to ensuring that the integrity of both Houses is protected.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Normally we have seven-minute first rounds. Would it possible to have five, so we can make sure everyone gets a chance?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay, we'll start with Mr. Graham.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I don't have a lot of time so I'll get into it fairly quickly. I'd like to know, Mr. O'Beirne, if you could tell us in your words, under what circumstances may a PPS officer, an RCMP officer, obstruct, detain, arrest, or otherwise interfere with a member of Parliament in the precinct? Is there ever a circumstance where you could obstruct a member?

[Supt Mike O'Beirne]

I'm sorry, you're asking if there's ever a circumstance that—

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Yes, from your perspective is there ever a time that a PPS officer or an RCMP officer can stop a member, arrest a member, detain a member, delay a member? Is there ever a time that you can do that?

[Supt Mike O'Beirne]

For the PPS and the RCMP that is part of the PPS, I would say as acting director, that would be no.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

In that case, when there's a vote taking place, the buses have to wait in the VSF like everybody else. Why wouldn't they transit the bollards, for example?

[Supt Mike O'Beirne]

In this particular case, because there was the media bus arriving under police escort from our partners, the Ottawa city police, there was a transference of control of the motorcade to ensure continuity at the south Bank bollards. That bus entered through the south Bank bollards because that's essentially one of the only places that they can enter due to the size of the bus and ground clearance. It was at that point, and only for that reason, again due to vehicular safety concerns, that the VSF is paused. It was intended to be paused for a moment only. It was erroneously paused for an extended period of time which totalled eight minutes.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Right, but my point was that I have seen many times where the VSF is delayed because you have a truck sitting there, so the buses simply can't get in no matter what they do. Buses contain members; they're usually trying to get somewhere. Why wouldn't the buses be allowed to go around and use the bollards as a course of practice?

[Supt Mike O'Beirne]

Certainly we can explore that to make sure that's something we can do. I think we'd have to explore, again, the vehicular safety aspect of it. The VSF can see hundreds of vehicles per day, sometimes up to 800 during a business day, so that's a great deal of vehicular traffic. Our concerns are multi-layered there. There's of course providing the safety and security of the grounds, the security envelope that encompasses all of Parliament Hill. However there is also, as I mentioned, vehicular traffic safety because the exit is so close, very proximate, to the entrance. That is a concern for us.

That's certainly something we can explore moving forward.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Could you have it explored that members be allowed to get off buses when they're stopped in the VSF for one reason or another? I know that the bus drivers generally do not let you get off except at a designated spot, which can lead to obvious obstructions. I put the idea to you that we be able to get off anywhere, especially during a vote.

[Supt Mike O'Beirne]

I would look forward to discussing that with the administration to coordinate that. The buses don't necessarily fall under the authority of the PPS. However, as our concern is always your and everyone else's safety on Parliament Hill, we'd certainly be interested in looking for opportunities there and ensuring that this can be done in a safe and secure manner.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

In your comments, you mentioned that there's going to be a system in place to warn all PPS officers when there's a vote taking place. Up until now, what has been the practice? When a vote takes place, how are the PPS members informed?

[Supt Mike O'Beirne]

It was done in a sporadic fashion, if and as required. I have, as of yesterday, passed a command to our forces so that as soon as there is any sign of a vote taking place, we're alerted. As I mentioned, there is an overarching radio broadcast to all PPS personnel so they are aware to take all measures to ensure unfettered access to the House.