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.