Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 11th, 2024

[Matthew Ritchie]

We have about 3,500 a year, and those range from one person with a sign to the President of the United States coming to visit. There are several events daily of varying levels that we need to manage while balancing accessibility and parliamentary business.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Many conversations have taken place about how we can better look at the processes, who we allow in and whose responsibility that is. If it's an organization's responsibility to manage that, is it left to the parliamentarians, our security or PPS itself?

Could you give us your thoughts on that?

I know you had said that you are mainly involved in the physical threat but, again, in terms of that reputational threat, what would that do to the overall process if we were to implement a stricter system? I'm thinking of receptions and meetings, and people in MPs' offices, and those kinds of events.

[C/Supt Mitch Monette]

Do you want to handle this one, Matthew?

[Matthew Ritchie]

There's a lot we can do through partnerships with everyone on Parliament Hill. We need to ensure that we have the three pillars in place to ensure a secure precinct, which includes IT, infrastructure, and people.

Through our posture and the support we receive from institutions, we are able to ensure that everything goes relatively smoothly. The way we ensure that happens is through preparedness, practice, exercises and training.

To answer your question, the way we achieve that is through preparedness and having the ability to respond quickly and being nimble with our posture.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

In terms of an increase, are you at capacity now? If we were to increase that at all, what kind of impact would that have on your ability to do your job now?

[Matthew Ritchie]

I think that right now we are hovering around where we should be, from a numbers perspective. If we added more responsibility, we may need to look at more people to ensure that we're able to achieve our mandate.

Also, based on the ever-evolving threat, we do need to ensure that we're well positioned to support Parliament. Currently, we are where we need to be to meet our mandate, as it stands now.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

One of the issues that I think we'll have to tackle in terms of the recommendations we see is that balance of that physical threat and reputational threat.

There's also been the balance of the partisan and the non-partisan and the independence of certain offices versus the over-control of certain offices that are partisan. We certainly saw a little bit about that insistence that the Sergeant-at-Arms or the Speaker's office have that independence, yet there may have been some instances where there was a belief that the PMO should have more or shouldn't have more.

Can you talk about the importance of the independence between those offices?

If we're talking about who vets those lists more, how do we ensure that independence of your office in particular?

[C/Supt Mitch Monette]

Through you, Madam Chair, I can assure you that, from a PPS perspective, we do the job and we proceed without influence one way or the other. We are completely neutral in our approach to how we do security and to how we serve our clients. We are depoliticized. We don't look at it that way, as we should not. Those are the marching orders we receive and those are the marching orders I provide to our workers.

In terms of specifically how you perceive it, my answer is that I don't think we get the influence that some might think others might have on us.

I don't know if this answers your question.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Yes.

One concern I've had is that throughout the exchanges after the incident occurred in the chamber, this committee received documents showing that political staff changed from maybe emails to phone calls when discussing the issue.

When you're liaising with those political staff and so on, even if it's the PMO or so on, how do you ensure your paper trail and that accountability?

Please give a quick response.

[C/Supt Mitch Monette]

We do it through record-keeping. It's all related to an event, so we open files. We maintain all the correspondence and exchanges we have with parliamentarians, with the Sergeant-at-Arms or with whomever we're dealing with when it's attached to a file.

Does that kind of answer your question?

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

I don't have any more time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

You were very good with your time.

We will do our second round with Mr. Calkins, followed by Mrs. Atwin.

Mr. Calkins, you have five minutes, through the chair.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank both the witnesses here today.

I've been a member of this place for quite some time. I remember October 2014 very well. I want to say thank you once again to our PPS staff for the work they did that day. They weren't PPS at the time; they were the House of Commons security.

I recognize that this is your mandate. Your mandate is the physical protection of the precinct—the assets that are here and, of course, the human beings who come here either for work of for visitation. I commend you for the excellent and difficult task that it must be.

I do believe that the issue that's before this committee is one of reputational damage and how we mitigate reputational damage. I don't believe that's in your mandate at all.

Madam Chair, given that and given that these are very busy individuals who are looking after the care and control of the physical security of this place, I would like to move a motion, which I believe you'll find is in order, that will broaden the scope of the current study to fully ascertain how we can get to the reputational portion of this.

I'm certain that the motion is being circulated right now to the clerk. When you're ready, Madam Chair, I'll happily read the motion into the record.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

It's related to the study.

Just for process, if we're in public and there is a motion expanding the scope in relation to what we're doing, notice is not needed. I understand that the interpreters have a copy of it, and I understand that it should be hitting everyone's in-boxes. Has it been received?

Mr. Duguid, do you have it?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

I'm just changing my password.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Do you have it, Ms. Atwin?

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I do, but can we just briefly suspend just so we can take a look at it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Why don't we take a two-minute break?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Can we present it first?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We'll get it read into the record. As long as you have it, that's all they're concerned with.

Mr. Calkins, are you suggesting that our guests not stay?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

I can only speak for us. We're happy with the testimony that we've received from our witnesses. I'll leave it up to the discretion of others.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Ms. Gaudreau, do you have any further questions?

I see you don't have any.

Let's just see what happens. Let's read this into the record.

Go ahead, Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I move:

That, given that on September 19, 2023, the Prime Minister invited Yaroslav Hunka to attend his exclusive reception with the President of Ukraine in Toronto on September 22, 2023, and that the hurt and international embarrassment that resulted from the honouring of Yaroslav Hunka could have been avoided had the Prime Minister’s Office done its due diligence to vet the list of guests that it sent to the Office of Protocol of Canada, and that neither the Prime Minister nor any member of his Cabinet has apologized for that invitation, the Committee expand the scope of its study on Parliamentary Protocol Related to an Incident in the Speaker's Gallery on Friday, September 22, 2023, to include the events leading up to the issuing of the aforementioned invitation, to explore the potential correlation between the invitations issues for both events; and

That, given that the former Speaker of the House of Commons is a central figure in the events leading up to recognition of Yaroslav Hunka during the President of Ukraine’s Address to Parliament on September 22, 2023, and that the former Speaker has declined the Committee’s invitation to appear as a witness, the Committee instruct the Chair to write a letter to Anthony Rota strongly urging that he appear, along with his current and/or former staff who were involved in arranging for Yaroslav Hunka to attend and be honoured at the Address, for two hours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Calkins.

I have Mr. Berthold on the list followed by Mr. Duguid.

I'm going to take a two-minute break to bring us back up to speed and continue this.