Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 9th, 2017

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

In 2014, a similar incident resulted in a recommendation that a phone number be created in order to have a member be able to call somebody and say,“There's an obstruction taking place now. Can I get it resolved?” Has that ever been done?

[Supt Mike O'Beirne]

I could tell you that since the creation of the PPS, as I mentioned in prior appearances to the committee, we went from three operational command centres, which we still try to operationalize on a daily basis.... We're trying to go from three to two to one. What we've been able to do is instead of having parliamentarians, visitors, guests, call three different call centres for potentially the same event, is have all calls for service go to one operational command centre. If there's ever any kind of issue, you are able to call that central number and then we can turn to that with the urgency that it requires.

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

And—

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

That's time, Mr. Graham.

Mr. Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Superintendent, just to be clear, the media bus was coming onto Parliament Hill, and you mentioned that there was an eight-minute delay in total. I have to assume that most of the minutes of the delay were after the bus had passed through. Would that be correct? How many minutes after the bus had passed through would this have been?

[Supt Mike O'Beirne]

The delay exceeded approximately six minutes.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

That was the part after the bus had passed through. Or was that was the total amount?

[Supt Mike O'Beirne]

The total amount was eight minutes. As a matter of course, what happens in most instances is that if we're receiving a head of a state, let's say, or a large motorcade, and they're arriving by the same fashion, we would close the VSF in the perhaps 30 seconds or one minute leading out to a motorcade arriving, just to ensure that all vehicular traffic has stopped.

In this case, it was a total of eight minutes, yes.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Right. Okay. The majority of it must have been afterwards, because the two members who were delayed, Ms. Raitt and Mr. Bernier, were at a bus shelter waiting, with no obvious....There was no vehicle passing through that would alert them to the fact that this was the initial reason.

Mr. Bernier could hardly have crossed the street to make an inquiry about what was up, had there been a bus passing through at that time or about to do so. When he did cross over and make an inquiry, he was informed that the delay was as a result of the Prime Minister's empty motorcade leaving the Hill.

I assume that was incorrect information that was provided to him. Is that correct?

[Supt Mike O'Beirne]

Well, the information that we have does not reflect that. So if Mr. Bernier was given erroneous information, then I—

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Now, I'm not quoting Mr. Bernier here, I'm quoting Ms. Raitt. On March 22 she said the following:

I was told by security at the bottom of the Hill that we were unable to access the House of Commons through our normal transport, because they were holding the buses on account of empty cars for the Prime Minister needing to return in order for us to be brought to the House of Commons.

In all fairness, that's Ms. Raitt's testimony, and I gather that she must have asked one of the other officers. Is that possibly the source of the incorrect information? Perhaps it was one of the officers on that side of the street?

[Supt Mike O'Beirne]

Sir, that's possible. We don't have information that would confirm that there was an interaction in that regard. The information that we have and the verification of the video shows that it was solely the media bus that created the delay, and the—

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Right. Understood.

Let me ask this question. Had the motorcade been leaving at this time, would this then have caused a similar delay? Is that how that process works? You understand why I'm asking this: I think we're dealing with one problem, and there may be a second problem out there that could potentially arise in the future.

If the motorcade is leaving, does it take some kind of priority? This is an empty motorcade, of course.

[Supt Mike O'Beirne]

Again, as a matter of course in daily operations, given that we have 700 to 900 vehicles going through the VSF, quite often the VSF is paused temporarily when we have vehicles leaving. Is it possible that in the future the vehicle screening facility will be paused for any number of things—parliamentary buses, construction vehicles, several other vehicles? It's entirely possible, yes.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

When you say it's “paused”, I assume what that means is that the officers on site are not authorized to allow vehicles through. They have to wait for some kind of command to once again allow vehicles to pass through. Or do they make these decisions at their own discretion?

[Supt Mike O'Beirne]

It depends on any given circumstance. For instance, if it's an articulated construction vehicle that's of extended length, the vehicle screening facility supervisor can make that determination. It becomes a traffic control issue more than anything else, and—

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

In that case it's local discretion, I'm assuming. What about in this case? Was it their discretion or was the discretion exercised at a higher level?

[Supt Mike O'Beirne]

Perhaps I can say that the PPS currently has five operational divisions. The uniformed divisions ensure the safety and security of the precinct and the grounds. These divisions are currently operationally led by former members of the RCMP's Parliament Hill security unit, the House of Commons security, and Senate security. They all came together as a result of the creation of the PPS.

On a daily basis, the command framework involves the linkages between those five operational divisions in the PPS. That means that any and all aspects of security are discussed and analyzed, as I mentioned, against the backdrop of the domestic and international threat environment and based on information and intelligence.

On budget day, March 22, the divisions that were affected by the budget event formed a unified command to ensure that all aspects of the budget security operation unfolded as expected. This unified command oversaw the decision-making process of halting the VSF timings with the Ottawa police, and timings with the PPS motorcade escort that took the bus onto the Hill. They were also responsible for all the moving parts of the rest of the parliamentary operations.

As I mentioned, sir, the delay and the extent of the delay was an error, and it's one that I accept responsibility for.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Christopherson, please dispense with any questions you have for the Speaker first.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you for being here. It's unfortunate that we're back again.

I want to say right at the top, though, that I appreciate your comments, Director O'Beirne. It's not so much that we need you to demonstrate your fealty by apologizing to us in person, but it goes a long way to establishing, going forward into history, the priority of this. Your comments are just one more piece and they're appreciated, as is the fact that there's no dodging or trying to avoid this. You straight-up said that there was no excuse for this delay, you apologized, and you took responsibility. That's appreciated, and I just want you to know that.

I really only have a couple of questions for the Speaker. Before I get there, I need just one more clarification. In the Speaker's remarks he makes note of the MOU, the memorandum of understanding, from 2015 that says the “authority...of the Parliamentary precinct is vested in the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons, as the custodians of the privileges...[and] rights...of the members...”.

As we have established in previous discussions, most of which were in camera—and I hope there's no need to go back and rebuild the argument—it needs to be clear that, notwithstanding the memorandum of understanding, you, sir, as a sworn officer of the RCMP, should you receive a direct order from the commissioner of the RCMP, have no choice but to follow that order.

Also, given the fact that the RCMP commissioner takes direction from one person—well, two, but primarily one—at the end of the day on the big things, and that's the Prime Minister, there remains this issue that the control of the security of this House is not in our hands anymore. Notwithstanding this memorandum of agreement, the reality is that the executive branch, through the Minister of Public Safety and the Prime Minister, can give direction to the commissioner of the RCMP, who can give a direct order to the director of our protective service. They are the people who ultimately have the power to control this place, and let's not be under any other illusion.

My question, Speaker, having established that...you know exactly what I'm doing, sir, and probably could have written out how this was going to go before it started.

Here's the thing, though, sir. You are, of course, first among equals. We look to you to preserve our rights. I'm wondering about this lack of detailed planning and giving that planning priority—simple things. For instance, it seems to me that in the past—and I haven't seen it in a while, but I say this for the other veterans, especially Mr. Reid, who has been around longer than any of us here—when there were votes called...We didn't have the car wash then, but as you kind of went through and went up, rather than going all the way around by East Block, if there was a vote on, the bus would hang a quick left and go up the west access to the Hill because it gets you there quicker. This doesn't seem to happen anymore, but that's the kind of thing that, once we know there are issues going on....

I'm wondering, Mr. Speaker—and I put this to you—if we should ask that there be a separate plan for a guest or of anything, which I just labelled as a MAP, a members access plan, that would specify where members are going to come from and how they're going to get in. I don't know. We need to think this thing through. For instance, if we have guests on the Hill and there's an unusual security circumstance, a bell is on, and there are members on a bus, maybe that driver, because he or she has communication, contacts somebody and says there are members on the bus. At that time, some kind of protocol kicks in and—as I think was previously suggested by someone—they suddenly go off the regular path and, rather than remaining stuck in a pause, they take an emergency alternate route that's planned, and the access for that vehicle and for those who are walking....

Maybe, sir, we'd need a sign-off by you. I was thinking maybe you could come here to PROC, though that could get a bit tedious. However, maybe just our knowing that you've looked at the plan and signed off on it, and that ultimately you're responsible—as you are anyway—we'd know our rights have been considered in the planning of this because there was a separate stand-alone members access plan that you personally have agreed covers all the contingencies. Then, in an ideal world, if we get into these kinds of circumstances, rather than having crisis, it would be a matter of modifying plans that didn't work, whereas right now we always seem to be coming back to the beginning and reinventing the wheel.

I throw this out as a couple of things for now, Mr. Chair.

I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that you want to never be here again on this issue as much as we do not want to be seized of it, but we have to do something different. We're into an Einstein thing here. If you take a look at the presentation we had earlier, if we keep doing the same things over and over again we're going to get the same outcomes. If we want a different outcome, we have to do things differently. That planning aspect, somehow, has to be different than it has been because we're still not there yet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Time is up. I don't know if the Speaker wanted to comment.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Christopherson, in the same way that you suggest that I might have been able to write your opening comments, I think that when it comes to my desire to not have this sort of thing happen again and not have to appear on this sort of thing, you've read my mind as well.

In relation to the question of the current set-up in terms of the legislation that governs the PPS, that is a matter for Parliament to decide, of course, and not a matter around which I as Speaker, of course, would comment on because it could conceivably be debated in the House of Commons, obviously.

I think that what I can say is that I appreciate your suggestion in terms of what it might mean. First of all, this is largely about the day-to-day management of the PPS, which is under the control of the director. However, I think we can take your suggestion and consider it.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Speaker.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Our next questioner only has one question. Perhaps we could do that and then go on to the witnesses. Is that okay?