Evidence of meeting #71 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was passport.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
He's going on with speculation and all sorts of things. I wish the member would direct his question back to the reason we're here, which is to ask questions specifically to the Hill security and on what has been referred to us from the finance committee. His personal opinions on this and his reflections are not very helpful to actually studying this portion of the BIA, which is really the purpose of why we're here today.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Mr. Easter, I will sustain that objection because, quite frankly, for the first time that is fine, but we're suggesting now.... You can have your thoughts and your perceptions on this, but we're asking the witnesses for their information and their testimony with regard to the bill. I would ask that you refer to that in your questions. Should you be able to do that, the chair would certainly be in accordance with the direction you're heading.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I can do that, Mr. Chair, but the fact of the matter is that this bill in the budget implementation bill is asking the RCMP to basically take over protective services. We have not had the benefit of a report to look at as a committee, so we're not operating on very good information. We do know, as the parliamentary secretary knows, that the Information Commissioner has now asked the Attorney General of Canada to file charges against the RCMP for the destruction of documents, and where did—
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
We have a point of order.
Mr. Easter, with all respect, you're making allegations before this committee on, quite frankly, as you've suggested, information that has not come to this committee. Now, if this committee has requested to hear from witnesses like that and they're going to bring forward their testimony, that is fine. But for you to make a statement offhand like this....
Let us get back now to the point of questioning our witnesses who are here. The chair would certainly appreciate your cooperation.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
You'll get my cooperation, Mr. Chairman, but my point is that increasingly there's concern, by me certainly, and by many in the public, about what happened in terms of the incident on the Hill and about whether or not there is political influence over what is now going to be the parliamentary protective service. As parliamentarians, what we've always had with the current service—
Conservative
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Chair, I appreciate my friend's desire to have a partisan rant—
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
—because those are always fun, but we're here to hear from expert witnesses on a particular part of the budget implementation bill. I don't know what question Mr. Easter might have in mind, but surely conspiracy theories are not something that they can reasonably respond to, so I really think we need to focus a little better on hearing from these witnesses and getting our work done.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Mr. Easter, the chair has been most considerate, but the chair would ask you to direct your questions to the witnesses with regard to the budget bill; otherwise, you'll be denied the opportunity to ask further questions.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
That is where I'm getting to, Mr. Chair. My concern as a parliamentarian—and I have been an MP for 21 years—is that the parliamentary protective service not be influenced from someone beyond Parliament, either in the Prime Minister's Office, in the commissioner of the RCMP's office, or somewhere else. We need that independence.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
You've lost the floor, Mr. Easter.
We will now go to Madame Michaud, please.
NDP
Élaine Michaud NDP Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today.
I would like to quickly go back to a point that my colleague raised about the problems that some of my colleagues have already experienced with regard to access to Parliament Hill. The Speaker of the House of Commons acknowledged that there had been a breach of parliamentary privilege. A motion was put forward in the House, but it was defeated. So we can't study the issue.
Since the Speaker of the House of Commons cannot act unless there is a vote in the House, I'm wondering if a mechanism in the provision of this part of the bill can resolve this problem. In fact, in the context of a majority government, my privileges won't necessarily be protected if the government decides not to push the matter any further.
Does anything in these provisions protect me, as a member of the opposition?
Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet and Counsel to the Clerk of the Privy Council, Privy Council Office
The bill makes in no way changes the internal parliamentary rules. It protects these rules by very clearly indicating that the bill does not change the privileges. Furthermore, it does not change the rules of internal economy of the House of Commons or the Senate.
NDP
Élaine Michaud NDP Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
So I, too, will be required to raise the fact that there may be a problem of political influence within this process. It's not entirely neutral. Actually, we need to have a vote in the House of Commons. As a parliamentarian, I see a huge problem with this.
That said, I will move on to another point because I have several questions.
In your presentation, you spoke about a directive or at least about some advice from the Auditor General from June 2012. He recommended that the security services within the Parliamentary Precinct be unified. In this case, as well, it was not a matter of entrusting all this responsibility to an external entity.
Does this decision stem from political will, from an instruction that the government gave when the bill was drafted, or is it a choice made based on consultations carried out when it was being drafted?