Public Safety Committee on May 26th, 2015

[Isabelle Mondou, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet and Counsel to the Clerk of the Privy Council, Privy Council Office]

The work to draft this legislation was guided by the motions passed by the House of Commons and the Senate, which clearly identified three key requirements for an integrated security force: first, that the RCMP lead operational security; second, that the privileges, immunities, and powers of the Houses be respected; and third, that the continued employment of existing and respected parliamentary security staff be ensured.

In terms of the first requirement, division 10 of part 3 proposes to amend the Parliament of Canada Act to create a statutory entity called the parliamentary protective service, which would be responsible for all matters relating to physical security throughout the parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill.

The bill states that the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Speaker of the Senate “shall enter into an arrangement” with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to have the RCMP “provide physical security services throughout the parliamentary precinct and Parliament Hill”, according to terms specified through this arrangement.

Under the joint general policy direction of the Speakers, a director of the parliamentary protective service will lead integrated security operations. This director would have the control and management of the service, would be a serving RCMP member, and would be selected through a process outlined in the arrangement. The director of the parliamentary protective service will lead RCMP members as well as current Senate protective services and House of Commons protective services members. The director will also be accountable to the Speaker for the management and performance of the parliamentary protective service.

The director will be accountable to the RCMP commissioner through the RCMP chain of command for ensuring that the RCMP meets its responsibilities according to the terms of service included in the arrangement, which is currently being negotiated by the Speakers and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. All RCMP members who serve in the public protection services, including the director, will continue to be employed by the RCMP.

The second requirement set out in the motion was that privileges, immunities, and powers of the respective Houses be respected. This legislation has been drafted so as to avoid limiting the powers, privileges, rights, and immunities of the Senate, the House of Commons, and their members, and to ensure that the bill does not conflict with the RCMP Act.

According to the bill, the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Speaker of the Senate will be responsible for the parliamentary protective service, given their role as the custodians of the powers, privileges, rights, and immunities of their respective Houses and of the members of those Houses. It is through their roles as the custodians of parliamentary privilege, and as an exercise of those privileges, that the Speakers will enter into an arrangement to have the RCMP provide physical security services.

The RCMP and the House of Commons and Senate administrations are working collaboratively on transition planning right now, and while I can't speak to these details, I can say that upholding the rights of access and privilege traditionally enjoyed by parliamentarians will be a core objective of this work.

Lastly, the motion made a commitment to ensure the continued employment of the existing parliamentary security staff. As you will have seen, much of the bill is devoted to ensuring that these staff members will have employment stability and continuity. All staff currently employed within the Senate Protective Service and the House of Commons Protective Service will become employees of the Parliamentary Protective Service on the day on which these provisions come into force. The terms and conditions of their employment would not be changed by this legislation, all existing collective agreements would remain in force according to their own terms, and the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board will have jurisdiction to address concerns going forward.

Some committee members may question why a decision was taken to draft legislation in order to create the Parliamentary Protective Service. I would like to note that the parties saw two advantages to this course of action.

Firstly, creating the Parliamentary Protective Service in statute ensures that there would be one employer for all existing House of Commons and Senate security staff, which would facilitate the integration and operations of this new security service.

Secondly, establishing the Parliamentary Protective Service through legislation allows for the creation of a new, independent appropriations vote to fund it. The provision of a dedicated source of funding would help to ensure that the PPS maintains its institutional independence as an office of Parliament.

Before the start of each fiscal year, the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Speaker of the Senate would instruct the director to prepare an estimate of the sums that would be required by the Parliamentary Protective Service for the coming year. The Speakers would provide these estimates to the President of the Treasury Board, who would table them in the House of Commons with the estimates of the government for the fiscal year.

In conclusion, while there are other steps to be taken before fully integrated security operations in the parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill are realized, this bill represents a necessary and significant step towards this goal.

Thank you for the opportunity to make these opening remarks. David and I will be pleased to answer your questions and to listen to your comments regarding the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much for your comments.

We will now go to our first round of questioning for seven minutes with Mr. Falk, please.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to both of our witnesses for coming to committee today and presenting, and for the good work you do in keeping all of us safe on the Hill.

I want to start by talking a bit about the events of October 22 of last year. First of all, I want to start by thanking all of our law enforcement agencies that were participating on the Hill during that day and making sure that the members of both Houses were safe and that our staff were as well.

Coming out of that event, there's been an analysis of that day. There were multiple law enforcement agencies involved. Can you talk a bit about the different roles that each one of those agencies had, and some of the responsibilities, and also maybe about some of the things that this act will do to streamline some of their activities?

[David Vigneault]

Thank you very much for your question.

As you said, the events of October 22 were definitely tragic. We also saw on that day the dedication and the professionalism of the law enforcement and security personnel throughout the different phases of the operation during the day.

First, as you now know, it's a layered approach to this security at the moment, and this bill speaks to the need to make changes to that current approach. When the event started at the War Memorial, the police of jurisdiction were the Ottawa Police Service. The OPS responded when the first incident took place, when unfortunately Canadian Forces member Cirillo was shot. When Zehaf-Bibeau transitioned to the grounds of Parliament Hill, it became the responsibility of the RCMP to tackle the threat at that point.

That layering starts with the OPS, the Ottawa Police Service, outside the grounds. When the individual arrives on the grounds of Parliament Hill, it becomes the responsibility of the RCMP. When the individual enters Parliament, the building itself, the Centre Block, then there is joint jurisdiction. Mostly, the individual stayed within the confines of the House of Commons, so the House of Commons protective service was in charge of the event up until the time Zehaf-Bibeau was shot and killed by the different security services who were there during that day.

I think what the events of that day speak to is that there is a need for better coordination of these services. As you know, of course, when you have a very determined individual—with in this case a rifle and a knife—who is determined to do something and is determined that the objective he wants to accomplish will likely end up with him being killed and he's fine with that, it's very difficult to prevent someone like that from carrying out his mission. From that perspective, having an integrated service the way that this bill envisages will allow for better coordination from the grounds of Parliament and inside both chambers in the Senate and in the House of Commons.

In any situation where you have what would be a terrorist incident or a shooting of any other nature, there will be what we call the “fog of war”. There will be confusion and so on, but the more there is coordination between the different entities—and in this case there would be one entity protecting the chambers and all of the members and senators—the more we can reduce the risk that confusion will lead to a tragic outcome.

This bill, by creating this unified security service, is definitely a step in the right direction, meeting the express will of the Senate and the House through the motions and also responding to the detailed report of the Auditor General in 2012.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you.

On October 22 there were actually two separate security forces inside the House at that time, one for the Senate side and one for the House side. That was a change that was made almost immediately, that those two forces begin communicating and actually have one central command. The proposed act now would see the entire parliamentary precinct area included in one central command. That includes how big an area?

[Isabelle Mondou]

The bill defines what area will be covered. It is essentially all the parliamentary precinct and the grounds as well. You won't have the distinction that you have now.

The bill also allows the Speaker to designate in writing any another area. If for some reason, for construction or another reason, the House or the Senate needs to move to another building, this building could be designated as subject to parliamentary privilege and to protective services. You now have a very clear definition in the bill that designates both the grounds and the parliamentary precinct.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

And the Speaker of the House will have jurisdiction over that police protection.

[Isabelle Mondou]

That's correct. Both speakers have the overall control of the new service that's being created. They are the ones who will be responsible to enter into an arrangement with the RCMP and define the modality of this arrangement with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the RCMP.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Had we had that arrangement on October 22—you've obviously analyzed that day—how would things have been different?

[David Vigneault]

First, it's a difficult question to go in retrospect and speculate in terms of what would have happened.

Second, as you've seen in media reports, a number of reviews are being finalized as we speak. The Ontario police service is doing two reviews and the RCMP has done internal reviews. The result of these operational reviews will definitely lead to changes, will inform how the new director of the parliamentary protective service, with his colleagues, will carry out the security, taking into account new threats, taking into account the environment that we're in now.

It would be very difficult for me to speculate on what would have been different, but I can say with a level of certainty that the more you unify the chain of command for operations, the more you reduce the potential for confusion. I think this definitely is a step in the right direction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Falk.

Mr. Garrison, you have seven minutes, sir.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Of course, on this side we share the sentiments about the excellent job that parliamentary security services did on October 22 in keeping all of us safe and then disposing of the threat.

I have some concerns, and we've expressed these in the House, that this is a very unusual way of proceeding. It's not just that this is in a budget implementation act, but the government used its majority to make some proposals for fundamental changes in the way Parliament operates. Normally we would not do such things as amend the Standing Orders using a government majority. We're in a difficult situation here, from my point of view, in terms of the privileges of members of Parliament.

I guess the first thing that struck me this morning was the fact that the Privy Council Office is appearing before our parliamentary committee. Can you tell me if to your knowledge this has ever happened before?

[Isabelle Mondou]

It's actually quite common. I'm appearing again with Minister Poilievre on an electoral bill this week. We do in this case support Minister Duncan, who, as you know, was the sponsor of the motion that was adopted by both the Senate and the House of Commons. We're here to assist him.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

But you would not normally appear without a minister.

[Isabelle Mondou]

No, I'm not sure about that, either.

[David Vigneault]

If I may, my direct boss, the national security adviser to the Prime Minister, also appears on his own without the minister, in this case the Prime Minister. I'm not sure if it's more or less common in other departments, but it happens from time to time.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thanks very much.

I want to go to something that you just said a minute ago, which is that the reports about what happened on October 22 “will” inform changes to come. This is an awkward question without a minister here, or without the government taking responsibility, but how can we be proposing to proceed with legislation, making a major change with the way we respond, in the absence of those reports? We don't have those reports yet.

[David Vigneault]

I understand your initial comments, but really this bill is in response to the will expressed by both chambers in the motions. I take your point from your initial comments, but the government responded to the motions in preparing this bill.

The House of Commons and the Senate have agreed to the recommendations of the 2012 Auditor General's report, which talked about reviewing the appropriateness of creating a unified protective service.

These were the two main drivers that I'm aware of that led to this bill in front of you today.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

But of course the Auditor General's report says nothing about giving control of that unified service to an outside party or to a party that reports to government.

We have been very strong in saying that we accept the recommendation of the Auditor General that things can be done more efficiently through unifying the protective forces within the parliamentary precincts, but the government has gone a step further than what is actually in that report.

When you talk about accountability, who is this new force accountable to?

We say this is streamlining things and making things more straightforward, but in fact what we're saying is that this new authority reports to two Speakers, the RCMP commissioner, a unified chain of command, and ultimately the minister. It doesn't seem to me that we are in fact clarifying who this force would be responsible to. You talked about a unified chain of command, so in the case of operations, who would this new force report to?

[Isabelle Mondou]

The way the bill is designed, it has two clear roles, one for the director and one for the Speakers.

The Speakers are responsible for the overall services in terms of, for example, the main estimates. They are also responsible for preserving privileges, and finally they have the power to issue policy direction to the services.

The director himself has full responsibility and actually statutory authority to manage the day-to-day operations of the service. He will be in charge not only of the RCMP officials who will be assigned to this task but also of employees who were formerly with the protective services of the Senate and the House of Commons. He will sit over all of them and he will be fully responsible, as per the bill, for all the day-to-day management of the services.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

But you say that this will be an RCMP officer and that he will be part of a unified chain of command, so is that really true or does he respond to the RCMP commissioner for operations?

[Isabelle Mondou]

The link to the RCMP commissioner is that the agreement that the Speakers are going to enter into asking the force to provide that service will be with the RCMP. This director will be accountable in the sense that he will have to make sure the agreement is properly implemented as it was intended to be by the parties.

If you want, I can use the analogy of how the RCMP provides services to the provinces. They enter into an agreement with a province and although the RCMP commissioner is the one entering into the agreement, there is a contractual relationship in which the RCMP serves under this agreement.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

The provinces have no role in operations of the RCMP in their provinces.

[Isabelle Mondou]

No, but they are the ones who sign the agreement, so the analogy here is that the Speakers will co-sign the agreement as will the Minister of Public Safety.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

It is the actual operations that I, as a member of Parliament, am concerned about.

We've already had numerous incidents here in which, for instance, the RCMP failed to understand the necessity for members of Parliament to get to votes in the House of Commons and in which the Speaker found the prima facie case of a violation of privilege. Unfortunately the Conservatives voted not to investigate that.

Certainly these new proposals you're making here lead to some important questions, if the Speakers have no role with regard to operations and ensuring that the RCMP adheres to practices regarding privileges necessary to members of Parliament.