Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 9th, 2017

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

There's no ill intent behind this, I assure you. It's just that we've spent so much time, as we all know, on—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

—“other business”?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

—the previous issue.

There's the Chief Electoral Officer's report that we have to get to eventually, and we want to get through the privilege issue. That's the only intention.

If we can expand the next Thursday meeting to three hours and perhaps keep doing that for a little while until we get through to a comfortable place wherein we know we're going to get through our agenda, I would suggest doing that. It's not wanting to avoid having the witnesses or going through the material; it is just a timing thing.

Let's expand the meetings, then, to three hours each meeting until we get to that comfortable point, I would say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay. Let's get going to see how much we can get done.

I have a quick question. Did we ever find out why the bus, seeing that it didn't reach here, wasn't let through?

[Andre Barnes]

No, it was not indicated in the member from Skeena—Bulkley Valley's intervention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Ms. Sahota.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I have a question regarding that. You had said they were informed that they would have to wait from three to five minutes. How long did they have to wait in actuality?

[Andre Barnes]

On reading the Debates, the government House leader commissioned a report, and I believe the delay—don't quote me—was in the neighbourhood of 74 seconds.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Oh, I had heard something else.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

They wouldn't know that at the time.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

No.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Once they are stopped, they don't know whether it's one minute or half an hour.

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

Half a minute feels like a long time when you don't know when it's going to end.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's especially true if you're racing to vote or speak.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Maybe you have a whip waiting for you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Let's move to the next incident.

[Andre Barnes]

If you're following along on your briefing note, we would pick up on page 5 with “F. 2014 - President of Germany”. That incident occurred in September 2014. The matter was referred to PROC by the House on September 25, 2014.

Three meetings were held by PROC to gather evidence. Something for the committee to keep in mind for its study is that there were about four groupings of witnesses. The member from Acadie—Bathurst would be one kind of group of witness, officials from the House of Commons. Then there was the acting clerk, the Sergeant-at-Arms, and the deputy sergeant-at-arms. We also had the commissioner of the RCMP accompanied by the assistant commissioner and the deputy commissioner. Finally, the chief of police of Ottawa plus an inspector appeared.

This resulted in the 34th report from the 41st Parliament's second session.

As for the incident itself, on September 25 the member from Acadie—Bathurst was in his office in the Justice Building. The bells began to ring for a vote. He boarded a bus in front of the Justice Building. The bus proceeded towards Parliament Hill. It was stuck in a traffic jam in front of the Confederation Building. Apparently, the RCMP were holding vehicles at the vehicular checkpoint in anticipation of the arrival of the motorcade of the President of Germany.

Fearing he would miss the vote, the member and other members exited the bus and proceeded on foot to the Hill. When crossing Bank Street north of Wellington, an RCMP member intercepted the member from Acadie—Bathurst, further delaying him from accessing Parliament Hill and making him wait until the motorcade had passed.

It was noted by the Sergeant-at-Arms during his appearance before the committee that the delay of the member of Acadie—Bathurst's right to access the parliamentary precinct freely in fact began during the traffic jam, which caused the buses to be held back from Parliament Hill.

It may also be worth mentioning that the member felt he was treated rudely by the member of the RCMP. The member did, however, make it to the House in time for the vote.

In respect of recommendations made by the committee in its report and changes made to security protocols on the Hill, during his appearance before the committee, RCMP Commissioner Paulson stated that since 2012 when a similar incident occurred, which we will get to in a moment, involving members being impeded from accessing the Hill freely, a number of changes have been implemented. These include the distribution to all RCMP members posted on the Hill of a directory of members of the House of Commons—that's the booklet that contains the names and pictures of all the members of the House—ensuring that all newly assigned RCMP members to the Hill are thoroughly briefed on parliamentary privilege and ensuring the prompt dismantling of security parameters established during major events and demonstrations at the conclusion of every event.

Also, Assistant RCMP Commissioner Michaud during his appearance before the committee stated that following the incident involving the member from Acadie—Bathurst two security protocols were put in place. First, motorcades were to begin using an alternative gate to enter and exit Parliament Hill. He noted that this was successfully employed during a visit by the President of the Republic of Finland. The second protocol established that last-minute changes to the movement of motorcades were to be communicated to House of Commons security services by an RCMP vehicle that would arrive ahead of the motorcade.

PROC's report on the matter made the following recommendations: first, that the office of the Sergeant-at-Arms provide all members with a phone number they can call in case of an emergency related to an obstruction that they experience in accessing the parliamentary precinct; and second, that a paragraph focusing solely on parliamentary privilege be included in the operational plans employed by security partners on the Hill.

The report concludes that members have had their right to unimpeded access to the parliamentary precinct denied with all too great a frequency. The committee considered the best solutions to this to be improved planning, greater coordination, and increased education and awareness on the part of security services and the members.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

If I may, Mr. Chair, I'll just point out...and it's not due to anything other than making sure that we see the difference.

To the best of my knowledge, and I stand to be corrected, it was never the former parliamentary security people we have had a problem with. That has never been an issue. They understand, because they've been here so long.

It's when we get into the interface of the RCMP and the House. At one of the last meetings, they told us that merging the two was going to be the great solution and was going to solve a lot of things, but it hasn't.

I just wanted to point out that one of the issues right now is who ultimately controls the security in this place. Let's just understand, as we're going through this, that those who made the decision to intervene with MPs were not the former security staff who were dedicated just to the Hill.

I'm not blaming the RCMP. We ran into the same thing at Queen's Park when we had the interface of the security people at Queen's Park, along with the OPP and the Toronto police. We have the same thing here because there's that merger.

I just think, with everything going on right now in terms of the former Hill dedicated staff fighting for respect, that it's important for us to acknowledge that it was not them, at any time that I'm aware of, who stepped in and prevented members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Andre.

[Andre Barnes]

Carrying on, the third and final incident from the 41st Parliament—E on page 5 of the briefing note—was the visit of the Prime Minister of Israel. That incident was referred to PROC on March 2, 2012. There were two meetings held to gather evidence. In terms of grouping of witnesses, there were the officials from the House of Commons, the Clerk, and the Sergeant-at-Arms, and there was the assistant commissioner of the RCMP. It did result in a report, the 26th report of the 41st Parliament, first session. In terms of a summary of that incident, the committee heard that at least three incidents occurred during that visit.

The first was a member attempting to access the Hill from the east gate nearest Elgin, and an RCMP officer prevented him from accessing the Hill. The RCMP officer did not have the directory of members of the House of Commons. The member himself did not have any identification. The RCMP officer did admit that he knew who the member was, but he was not allowed to permit him to pass without proper identification.

A second incident was when a member was attempting to access Centre Block using the lane that goes up the middle with the Centennial Flame. She was intercepted and told to go to East Block and take the tunnel to Centre Block.

A third incident occurred following the departure of the prime minister in which a member was leaving the Hill, and his preferred route was to take the east part of the ring road. He was told that he needed to go down the centre lane because they were still dismantling some of the security apparatus that was still there. He was told to go down the middle lane where the Centennial Flame was. So the incident was sent to PROC. During her appearance before the House, the Clerk apologized for the entire incident and the inconvenience, especially for the east tunnel instruction that apparently ran counter to the agreed-upon security plan.

During his appearance before PROC, assistant commissioner of the RCMP, Mr. Malizia, identified several changes that were in the process of being made to the standard operating procedure for visits from foreign dignitaries: working with the House and Senate security to have their personnel at key checkpoints to assist RCMP officers in identifying parliamentarians; placing experienced Parliament security members at key access points; and updating the orientation for RCMP members to further enhance their visual recognition of parliamentarians. He noted that each RCMP officer would be equipped in the future with a directory of members of the House of Commons.

In terms of recommendations made by the report, I would note that the report did not find a breach of parliamentary privilege. It was noted that such a finding should not be made lightly and that the committee was hesitant to draw any conclusions from the evidence it heard, especially because the members identified in the question of privilege declined to appear before the committee to provide evidence during the study.

The committee's report also stated the following: members were to be encouraged to carry their House of Commons ID cards and wear their House of Commons pins, especially when special measures were known to be in place on the Hill; the obligation to recognize and identify MPs as MPs belongs to the RCMP; and House of Commons security services should provide assistance to the RCMP in identifying members, and once a member is identified as a member, that person should be granted access to the Hill. The RCMP was strongly encouraged to call upon the assistance of House of Commons security service to help identify members at the various access points to the Hill. Lastly, all members of the RCMP on duty must be made aware of parliamentary privilege and the right that members have of unfettered access to the Hill and that this right is a fundamental pillar of the Canadian parliamentary democracy.

That is that for that particular incident.

If there are no questions, we'll go back in time to what is probably the most egregious incident back in 2004, which was a visit of the President of the United States. The matter was referred to PROC September 25, 2004. There were five groups of witnesses for the committee's information, and there four meetings held to gather evidence. The Sergeant-at-Arms gave a preliminary briefing. The two members who rose on a question of privilege, the member from Charlevoix—Montmorency and the member from Elmwood, were also at a meeting to give testimony. The Ottawa police were invited, and three members showed up, and a mix of witnesses including the RCMP, the Sergeant-at-Arms, and the major events coordinator for parliamentary precinct appeared before the committee.

A report resulted from that study, the 34th report of the 38th parliamentary session.

In a summary of what occurred, it was the first visit by the President of the United States, then president George W. Bush, since the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, and a large protest was planned on the Hill. According to the RCMP, the security in place at the time was the strictest and highest ever. Security forces on the Hill that day appeared to be the House and Senate security services, the RCMP, the Ottawa police, and the Toronto police.

On November 30, the member from Charlevoix—Montmorency rose in the House on a question of privilege, citing numerous examples of members being prevented or delayed from accessing Parliament Hill. Some of the delays lasted hours.

At issue was that most if not all the police officers providing security that day did not know the members' right to access the Hill. Members were halted, refused access at security barriers, even after showing their pins and their identification cards. As an example, one member apparently tried to gain access and spoke with 50 different police officers at 10 different access points over the course of three hours and nonetheless missed a vote.

The member from Charlevoix—Montmorency also noted there were cases of members interrupted while in the bathroom or in their offices, and advised that they could not use the hallways during the visit of the President. There were also complaints about lack of bilingual police officers on the Hill. While most members were eventually able to access the Hill, a number experienced substantial delays and some missed votes in the House.

In recommendations made by the committee, the committee report concluded that the privileges of the members of the House had been breached and that this denial and delay to access the Hill constituted a contempt of Parliament.

The committee, in terms of remedies, requested reports be prepared by the Sergeant-at-Arms and the RCMP about preventive measures they planned on instituting in the future to mitigate against a similar situation, and the Speaker and the Board of Internal Economy requested as a matter of urgency to enter into discussions to merge the House of Commons and Senate security services into a unified parliamentary security service before January 1, 2006.

That is it.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

I have a quick comment on that.

I was caught up in that as well. I was newly elected. I was at the Westin Hotel, and was not allowed to cross the street. I was told by the Ottawa police in no uncertain terms I could not cross. Now granted, I didn't turn around and do the old, “Do you know who I am?” deal. I suspect if I had it would have gotten me nowhere, such as was the case with many other members.

The scuttlebutt at the time—and I don't know if this is true or not, but nevertheless it's worth addressing—was that the presidential delegation had said that nobody had access within a certain distance, effectively quashing our privilege.

My question is going to be, and this is probably not the place, but maybe at some point, I want to say, “What if...?” As Mr. Christopherson pointed out, this all comes down to when these people visit, heads of state or similar, like the Pope, if they look at, say, the Prime Minister's protocol, or whoever the people are working in the PMO and say they don't want anybody coming into these areas because of security reasons, do we remind them that we as members have a privilege? I'm not looking for an answer now, but at some point I think it should be addressed. What do we respond with? I don't know.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Simms is right at the heart of the issue.

The other thing I want to underscore is that it doesn't get any more egregious than missing a vote. It makes me wince to think that someone missed a vote because they couldn't get here, which of course is why MPs have unfettered access, because who knows where that leads, ultimately, if it's okay to physically stop members from getting into the House?

The other thing I want to mention, on a positive note, since we're kind of going backwards and you can that see each time we visit it, it gets worse, up to the point now where we have hours and hours, members who missed votes.... It didn't get to that degree as we move closer to modern time, so it does show that we're making progress, but we're still not there. I have to tell you that I'll be shocked if this is the last time we ever deal with it before we finally get to the point where the planning for the security of guests has a secondary priority, that is, make sure that MPs can get to the House. We have to keep saying that over and over.

It made some gains, given the fact that we just heard that most of the RCMP back in that day and the other police—and probably a whole lot of other people—had no idea that this right existed. Now, we're at least at the point where they know that this has existed, and it's just still being curtailed in ways that are unacceptable. Just to be as positive as we can, we are making some headway. We're getting closer and closer, but “closer” is not good enough when it's an absolute right.

The last thing I want to say on this fight is that one of the things we risk when we do this is having people sitting back and saying, “Bloody MPs who are so special and elite.” You know what? That's a risk that we have to run. We need to take that heat, because for everybody who came before us, they were prepared to take their heat to make sure that for the future—for us, who they didn't even know—they were protecting our rights. When we're doing this, it's not just for us while we're here. More importantly, it's for the institution and for members of Parliament in the future. It's up to us on each of our watches to make sure that those rights are preserved. Otherwise, they are lost.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Reid.

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

We don't know when the bells are going to ring, and you have to suspend when that occurs, so could we get in advance unanimous consent to continue sitting till the top of the hour? That would allow us to continue discussing.