Public Safety Committee on May 26th, 2015

[David Vigneault]

Thank you.

The bill stems directly from the adoption of motions by both chambers. As you know — and your colleague mentioned it earlier — the House of Commons and the Senate motions speak very clearly of asking the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to take on this responsibility without delay. It really does stem directly from the motions.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

It stems directly from the votes adopted in the House by the government, which has a majority. In other words, it is not the will of Parliament, let's be very clear. It's the will of the government. Since there is no probing data behind this decision, I'll conclude that it's a political choice. Thank you.

Can you tell us whether, in terms of bilingualism, additional obligations will be imposed on Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers who work on the Hill?

Some of my colleagues have already had difficulty getting served in French by certain officers who are on Parliament Hill.

Do the provisions presented here include a specific obligation in that respect?

[Isabelle Mondou]

The rules on bilingualism, whether for individuals already part of the protection and security services of the House, the Senate or the RCMP, remain exactly the same. The bill does not change them.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

That's unfortunate. I personally have never had a problem with any officers of the House of Commons or the Senate. But the services provided by the RCMP outside the Hill or even inside are not the same when it comes to bilingualism. I find it a little unfortunate that no changes are being made in that regard.

[Isabelle Mondou]

I would like to add that the RCMP is subject to the Official Languages Act.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

In this case, revisions may be necessary because these obligations aren't currently being observed, unfortunately.

Could you tell me what specific training will be given to RCMP officers regarding parliamentary privileges? There still seem to be gaps in that respect. Could you give us some details on that?

[David Vigneault]

As we mentioned, given that the Speakers of both chambers will be responsible for the service, the director of the Parliamentary Protective Service will report hierarchically to the two Speakers, who will be responsible for determining how they want the privileges to be exercised.

Having said that, as my colleague mentioned previously, the selection process for the director of the Parliamentary Protective Service will be carried out in close cooperation with the Speakers.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

So we don't know if it will have to go to a vote.

My time is up, but the discussion was interesting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Okay, Madame Michaud. Thank you very much. We're over time.

We'll go to Mr. Payne, please.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for coming.

I guess I want to start off by saying that I believe our government has full confidence in the RCMP, its front-line members, and its leadership to enforce the laws of Canada and certainly to make sure that Canadians are safe.

I also want to acknowledge my colleague across the way, Mr. Easter, for saying, “Yes, this is a bill” in his comments.

I know that there are a number of organizations, particularly here even in Ottawa, that have made changes since the October 22 incident here on Parliament Hill. In particular, the Ottawa Hospital has revised some of their standards and securities for plans for employees, patients, and visitors on their campuses. Certainly those changes I believe are necessary.

I'm wondering if you have any comments that you want to make in regard to those kinds of things that have happened around Ottawa.

[David Vigneault]

Thank you for your question. I echo your comments about the professionalism of the RCMP. Any operational organization involved in operations will be well served after any such incident, any operation that requires a very high level of implication for many people, to do post-action reviews. What we have started to see now in the public domain are some references to a number of organizations. You mentioned the Ottawa Hospital. There are a number of government departments in Ottawa. The Ottawa Police Service and the RCMP have engaged in a number of post-action reviews. In my experience, this is the only way you can really learn from what has happened to improve, build your procedures, and build your decision-making processes and exercises. These are the only mechanisms you have at your disposal to really be better prepared for another incident.

If there is one thing that history teaches us, it's that the next time around it will be something different. I hope this doesn't happen any time soon, but the next time something happens, it will be a different type of incident, a different type of attack. The advantage of having a unified approach is to build on the deep expertise of the House of Commons protective services, the Senate protective services, and the RCMP and to bring their expertise together into a unified organization that will hopefully deliver better and more effective security on the Hill.

To conclude, most organizations that I'm aware of have embarked on some kind of post-action report in order to, as you mentioned, learn and improve on their performance.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

In your comments earlier you talked about at looking at Westminster, Australia, and so on. I'm just wondering, as part of your process did you look at any provincial legislatures, and do they have silos? I'm just wondering if that had any impact on this process that you're working on.

[David Vigneault]

We have looked at some provincial jurisdictions and it varies in terms of their approach. If you take for example the Province of Quebec or the Province of Ontario where they have provincial police services, or if you look at other provinces who have the RCMP under contract providing those services, they have very different processes. What we know is that a number of these organizations have inquired about the details of what has happened in Ottawa and are looking now at determining if they have any changes they need to make in their own legislatures.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

In your comments, you also talked about all of the current members of the protective services at the House of Commons and the Senate continuing on in their role. You said something about collective agreements. I'm wondering if you could kind of review that process for me and tell me what that really means.

[Isabelle Mondou]

One important factor in the motion was to ensure that these members will be protected and that their job will be as secure in the new model. The bill does that in various ways.

For example, it's ensured that all the employees from the Senate protective services and the the House of Commons protective services will be brought under the new service but with all the same positions. Everybody will be moved but remain in their position.

In addition, all the collective agreements will be maintained. All of the recourse mechanisms that these employees have are maintained. Basically their terms and conditions of employment remain the same except that they will now be housed in one single office.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Madame Doré Lefebvre.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank Ms. Mondou and Mr. Vigneault for being with us to provide some clarification on what will happen to operational security on Parliament Hill.

I know that this has been a sensitive topic in recent weeks and recent months. I appreciate that you are trying to provide some clarification on the matter.

I would like to continue discussing what will happen to current security employees of the House of Commons and the Senate. The last question that Mr. Payne asked concerning the collective agreements and current security employees of the House of Commons and Senate was very interesting.

When there was the debate in the House of Commons, I remember that the constables were relatively concerned about what was going to happen to their positions.

It was also mentioned that a lot of current security employees of the House of Commons and the Senate will retire or are thinking of retiring in the next few years. What will happen to those positions? Will new people be hired to fill their positions? Will we rely on the RCMP to fill them? Will the special force of security officers in Parliament be quietly and completely replaced by the RCMP? What's going to happen in the future?

[Isabelle Mondou]

First of all, I would like to say that it's an absolutely legitimate concern. You probably noticed when reviewing the bill that transitional provisions make up about two-thirds of the bill, and their sole purpose is to ensure that all the existing rights of these employees are protected. That answers the first part of your question.

For the future, obviously, we need to ensure that the people on site, including the new director, and the Speakers of the Senate and House of Commons, in particular, think about what they see for the future. They will probably also engage in internal consideration, as your colleague indicated, on what works well and what works better. The bill does not touch on these aspects, which will be part of the operational questions that the various players, the Speakers and the director will have to ask. It will be important to know what is working the best.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

The current security employees of the House of Commons and Senate have their union and their collective agreement. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police still does not have the right to unionize and, therefore, does not have a collective agreement. Will there have to be two sets of rules?

[Isabelle Mondou]

Actually, a fairly recent court decision asked for a review of the RCMP system. The court gave the government one year to look into it. So we don't know exactly what the future will bring, but it's an environment that is currently changing. What will the RCMP's status be? The court considered that there needed to be more robust mechanisms to represent RCMP employees. It will have to be resolved. I believe the court gave one year to study it.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police ready to take command and control of security on Parliament Hill?

[David Vigneault]

I mentioned earlier that the Speakers of both chambers and the RCMP are currently reviewing the selection process for the new director of the Parliamentary Protective Services. That's the first step. In the meantime, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the protective services of both chambers have set up working groups to review administrative issues, issues relating to the problems you raised regarding human resources management. They have also started looking into operational matters. Some working groups are already meeting.

After the events of October 22, the RCMP also significantly increased its operational deployment on Parliament Hill. If I remember correctly, the government allocated in its 2015 budget some $60 million over three years to increase resources dedicated to the services provided by the RCMP on Parliament Hill. Because of this, I can tell you that a level of operational preparation is currently in place. We are in the process of doing the work in case the bill should receive royal assent, so that everything is in place and we can carry out the operational work on day one.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

If I've understood correctly, that means that the government is planning $60 million over three years for RCMP officers on the Hill. I would like to know how much it will cost in total.

[Isabelle Mondou]

In terms of funds allocated currently to both protective services — the Senate Protective Services and the House of Commons Protective Services — and to the RCMP on the ground, I would like to add one thing. A transitional provision will make it possible to transfer these amounts to the new service. Therefore, in addition to the $60 million, these amounts will be part of a new envelope.

In the future, there will be an independent credit for this office. The director will have to consult with the Speakers and decide on the amounts required for the future.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, committee members.

Witnesses, thank you for coming here today to enlighten us on your experiences and certainly your knowledge of the bill we're discussing.

The meeting is adjourned.