Public Safety Committee on May 26th, 2015

[Isabelle Mondou]

The bill addresses these concerns in two ways.

First the Speakers, as custodians of the parliamentary privilege, are in charge of the service. They also have the power to issue broad policy direction. In addition to all of that, there is another provision that says nothing in this bill affects the privileges of the House and the Senate. Essentially this means that every recourse that exists now, including bringing matters onto the floor of either the Senate or the House, will be preserved and will exist.

The other item that I think is important is that this new person who will be charge of the services will be selected in collaboration and in consultation with both Speakers. So the Speakers will select this person with the RCMP through a transparent and consultative process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to Ms. Ablonczy, please.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you.

First of all, I disagree with my friend Mr. Garrison when he suggests there's something evil about government using its majority to do government business. That's what governments do. I assume, if his party becomes government, they'll use their majority to get an agenda too.

I do agree with Mr. Garrison's concern about accountability. You're saying in your remarks that there are two bosses for this new security force. They're accountable to the Speakers and they're accountable to the RCMP commissioner. Now, it has been my experience, in my rather long life, that having two bosses is not a lot of fun.

I guess what I'm really asking you is this. What would this accountability look like to these two different bosses? You kind of addressed that with Mr. Garrison, but I really want to understand how this will work, and if it is workable.

[Isabelle Mondou]

It's a good question. Essentially the accountability is shared because there are different purposes for each of the roles and responsibilities. In the case of the Speakers, they are the ones who are in charge of the services and they are the ones who will enter into the agreement. They're the ones who will negotiate with the RCMP the terms of the RCMP coming onto Parliament Hill. They're in control of that. They're the ones who will decide what the modalities are.

In terms of their specific role to preserve parliamentary privilege, they also need the ability—the bill was developed in consultation with both Speakers—to be able to issue policy directions on issues that are very core to the functioning of the House, whether it's access by members or whether it's the proceedings of the debate in the House, per se. They will have this ability to issue essentially broad policy direction to the director and to the service to basically lay out how they would like parliamentary privilege to operate. That's one important role.

The other role in this other accountability is that the director is a member of the force, so he comes with all the power and all the expertise of somebody from the force. He's also there to implement an agreement that has been signed by the Minister of Public Safety. The Minister of Public Safety, as you know, has no direct control over how the RCMP is managed. It's an independent organization, but the minister will sign the agreement with the Speakers to agree on all the terms and conditions of that agreement.

Once that is done, the role of the person in the protective service will be quite autonomous, because he has all the power he needs in the statute to exercise his function, plus the power that he brings with him as an RCMP official. He will be able to manage the day-to-day operations. Really, his reporting relationship with the commissioner will be to make sure that he is implementing the agreement the parties have decided to sign and in conformity with the intent of the parties.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Just so I'm clear on the concept, who has the ultimate authority?

[Isabelle Mondou]

The ultimate authority...?

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Yes.

[Isabelle Mondou]

It's the Speakers who are in charge of the services.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Okay. That's good to know.

When you helped design this legislation—I appreciate that we have smart people helping the government do this, and I commend you for it—did you look at any other jurisdictions and look at their best practices? Can you tell us about that, if you did?

[David Vigneault]

We have looked at some other jurisdictions, obviously mostly with the Westminster parliament model, Australia and the U.K. We found that even though there were interesting elements to consider, it was really important to have a made-in-Canada solution, with the very specific nature of the environment here, the very specific nature of our institutions, and the way they have evolved.

We know, for example, that Australia has gone through major changes within the last 12 months given the threat environment in Australia. They have adopted a different model. In the U.K., the home of the Westminster model, we know they're also going through some changes because the current environment is such that you need to have an operational response that will allow for a much more seamless operation.

Even though with our colleagues we've looked at these models, we've also very much looked at building on the very professional protective services in the House, the Senate, the RCMP, in their giving some advice in terms of how the legislation should be constructed.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I guess the question I have is what are the mechanisms in place for massaging this arrangement? What you're telling me is that we have a made-in-Canada arrangement that is perfectly acceptable and understandable, and we know that threats are an evolving thing.

Is the committee that's being formed to oversee this transition going to continue to operate? How are there going to be reality checks and ongoing responses to emerging threats?

[David Vigneault]

One of the interesting challenges for our colleagues in the Senate, the House, and when the new director of the parliamentary protective service will be nominated, will be to determine how best to organize themselves in order to tackle those challenges.

To answer your question about whether the committee will continue, I think it will be up to them to determine what is the best way to keep current in terms of the evolving threats. I would say that having someone from the RCMP in charge of the protective service under the direction of the Speakers would allow this individual to have very good reach back into the rest of the Government of Canada to have information about threats and about the evolutions of different vectors of those threats.

From that perspective, I cannot speculate specifically in terms of how they would organize themselves, but I would assume they will have a construct that will allow them to take the best information available in a timely way in order to make changes and adapt their posture.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

It hasn't been fully decided, but it is on the radar screen.

[David Vigneault]

It is definitely on the radar screen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Ms. Ablonczy.

Now, Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for coming from the Privy Council Office.

I do want to correct one thing that is in your remarks. You suggest you're here today to speak to this bill. This is not a bill. It's part of the budget implementation act, which is...I don't know where it comes from, whether it's always the Privy Council Office, or where. The fact that this important piece of legislation is hidden in a budget bill is, in my view, an affront to Parliament itself. Seeing as you're from the Privy Council Office, we've seen this happen too much under this government.

We also see in this budget implementation act a section that will—

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I'm wondering whether the question is going to be directed to this part of the BIA that has been referred to this committee or if the question is going to be directed at process. The two witnesses are here to speak directly to this section of the BIA that has been referred to us by the finance committee. I hope that's the question that's going to come out of this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Mr. Easter, I think you understand the relativity of the member's concern.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Absolutely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

I would certainly ask you to bring your question around to the issue of the content of the bill.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Absolutely, Mr. Chair.

I would hope that the Privy Council Office understands the relativity of ensuring legislation that relates to many different issues is separate legislation, so appropriate committees can deal with it. That's why I make the point.

What will be the responsibility now under this new piece of legislation of the Sergeant-at-Arms?

[Isabelle Mondou]

The bill does not touch specifically on the Sergeant-at-Arms. That will be a matter for the Speakers of the House and the Senate to determine.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Okay, so we don't know what's happening, then, with the Sergeant-at-Arms.

I guess one of the difficulties—this comes back to something that was asked earlier as well—is that as a committee we have been asked to deal with a new structure in terms of a parliamentary protective service without having the benefit of any report at all in terms of the investigation of what happened on the Hill. In one sense I hate to say this, but if what I'm seeing in the media is correct, we may be putting in charge the very service that was more at fault than any other in terms of the incident happening, and that's the RCMP itself.

In Britain, they have the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, which we tried to implement in Bill C-51. I have here their report on the incident of a soldier who had been shot in Britain. The report was begun before the court case even started with the individual. This is what they get in Britain. This government denied us that same kind of oversight in terms of Bill C-51, which might have been helpful.

But my point is that as parliamentarians we're being asked to look at a new parliamentary protective service when we haven't even been informed by a report of what went wrong in the incident on the Hill. I can tell you this in terms of the RCMP. There's a growing suspicion—a growing suspicion—that there's political influence in the operations of the RCMP, especially with the destruction of documents, according to the Information Commissioner.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I have a point of order.