Public Safety Committee on May 28th, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

The chair, on behalf of the committee, of course thanks our witnesses for their opening statements. We will now go to our first round of questions for seven minutes.

We will start with Mr. Payne, please.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing today.

It's a very important question, obviously, as a result of the occurrence on October 22. Most of us were in the House at that time and certainly have memories of that incident and some of the activities that happened around that point in time.

I know we had our first meeting on Tuesday. So my first question would be to Mr. Lapensée. We had officials from the department talking about division 10 in Bill C-59. I believe it was pointed out quite clearly by the officials that, in fact, the person who would be in charge of this would actually report to both the Speakers of the House, and I just wanted to know if you were aware of those comments made by the officials.

[Roch Lapensée]

No, I was not aware. But our understanding is the new director will be an active member of the RCMP who will report to both Speakers of the House. But at the same time will report as well to the minister and to the RCMP commissioner.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

There's some reporting but the direction, as I understand it by the officials, was to be given by the Speaker of the Senate and also the Speaker of the House of Commons. So, to me, that was an important aspect in terms of that.

Your organization also had some concerns, Mr. Lapensée, to make sure that all of your employees in your association would continue to be employed. You did talk about the letter from the Speakers of the House in the past, Speaker Claude Nolin and, obviously, Speaker Scheer. I'm just looking at the documents signed by both of those speakers at that point in time that refer to “continued employment of our existing and respected Parliamentary Security staff.”

It does say in the bill, as I understand, that they are going to continue to be employed. So I'd certainly like to think that this would alleviate the fears of your organization and members.

[Roch Lapensée]

Our biggest concern is not the current employment of our members but their future continued employment. At the present time we have no idea about the restructuring on the operational side of the bill. Restructuring the service could lead to possible cuts or possible restructuring of our members. We understand with the current status that our members are guaranteed employment, but our concern is more about the future and how the new director will proceed with changes in the future.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

When I think about what happens in terms of the leadership it seems to me that there should be one leader for the security services who will certainly provide the direction. To me, having a silo isn't the kind of thing that would work very well. We've heard that other organizations have made some changes because of the recent things that have happened. It seems to me that common sense would lead to that. I just want to make sure, are you and your organization opposed to having one central leadership?

[Roch Lapensée]

No we are not opposed that, but we are opposed to its being an active member of the RCMP.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Okay.

I'm not sure why you're opposed to the RCMP.

[Roch Lapensée]

For us it's clear that we're mixing the executive and the legislative part of the work, or the....

Our association feels that the executive part of our work should not be mixed with the legislative part just for the sake of maintaining parliamentary privileges.

RCMP members, especially under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, have an obligation to report only and exclusively to an RCMP member. We feel that this could cause some problems in the near future, as the message of the two Speakers to the new director would be somewhat diluted or changed owing to comments from his real boss, who would be the RCMP commissioner or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

There could be some confusion around that in the near future. Directives from the two Speakers to the director could be confused with those he would receive from the RCMP commissioner or the minister.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I certainly wouldn't agree with you, because I understand that the director will get direction from the Speakers of the House. Certainly as a member of the RCMP, obviously he would have discussions with the RCMP and potentially get some of their insight and information that they might have in terms of other organizations.

I just wonder if you could also talk about this. Are you aware of any other organizations that would have had silos, in other jurisdictions?

[Roch Lapensée]

No, I'm not.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Okay. Thank you then.

My next question is certainly going to be for the Auditor General. Thank you for attending.

Your report in June 2012 stated that the next steps were to respond to the situations more efficiently and effectively, as I read it. Obviously after the attack on the 22nd, it seems to be much more imperative that we needed to do that and to somebody at the head of the leadership of the security services for the House of Commons, and certainly the Senate.

I don't know if you have any other comments that you'd like to add to that, Mr. Ferguson.

[Michael Ferguson]

Maybe I'll add a couple of things, Mr. Chair.

Certainly our recommendation, which was in paragraph 74 of the audit, was about examining the costs of providing the same capacity for response across the parliamentary precinct and the possibility of moving toward a more unified security force.

We didn't talk specifically about how that might be done. Obviously we were leaving that up to the decision makers.

When I read through the bill, I have a couple of concerns myself, not as a security expert but as a lay person, sort of as an administrator trying to look at the bill and see how it would work.

For example, proposed new section 79.51 says the designation of what is to be included in the parliamentary precinct may be made by one Speaker or the other Speaker, so it's not a matter of both having to agree on it. So is there a possibility that one Speaker might think that security services need to be provided somewhere and the other might think that they shouldn't be, and in fact doing that could take resources from one place to another?

In 79.52(2), it says that the Speakers are responsible for the service, but whenever there are two people responsible for something, again that could be, to me—as an administrator and not knowing the details of security or all of the details of the administration—a signal of having two people trying to give direction and that there needs to be a way of making sure that clear direction can be given. It also says they are responsible for the service, but it doesn't really say what exactly “responsible” means.

I'm just making those comments more as an administrator, trying to think of it from the point of view of somebody who would have to implement this from an administrative point of view. There were just a couple of things like those that seemed a little unclear for me, and I wondered where that direction comes from for the director.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Fine, thank you very much. Your time is up.

Now Madame Doré Lefebvre.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would also like to thank Mr. Lapensée, Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Stock for joining us today to discuss division 10 of part 3 of Bill C-59.

I will start with you, Mr. Ferguson. In your remarks, you said that you have already recommended that the House of Commons administration and the Senate administration collaborate on establishing a unified security force.

Today, you have shared your main recommendations. However, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would also be added to an integrated force on Parliament Hill. The intent is for the RCMP to be put in charge of that unified security force, which would also include RCMP members. What do you think about that?

[Michael Ferguson]

Again, our recommendation for the House of Commons administration, together with its security partners, to look towards the possibility of putting in place a unified security force. Obviously, because there were the three forces that were involved in security at the time we did the audit, the process of putting that together was not something we specifically mentioned. So we didn't say how that should happen. We didn't say what role the RCMP should play versus the other two, and whether it should all go under the RCMP or that there be another way of putting it together, but pointed out that having three different organizations had resulted in the past in some confusion on perhaps some of the roles and responsibilities, particularly who had responsibility for the roofs of the buildings, and that sort of thing.

So for us it was just that they needed to have that common control and command, and they needed to think about moving towards a unified security force, but we weren't giving any direction about how that should happen or what role the RCMP or any other service should play in that.

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

Mr. Lapensée said earlier that he felt that mixing executive and legislative powers as proposed in the bill was problematic.

Do you agree with him?

[Michael Ferguson]

It is difficult for me to answer because I am not an expert on what parliamentary privilege means. I think that we generally need a security force that can get involved in all aspects of the parliamentary precinct.

So really it's not something that I can comment on.

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. Lapensée, thank you for being here today and for your comments.

I was especially interested in your labour relations concerns. I know that officers who work on Parliament Hill have a collective agreement. I really thought that your employees would be protected by a collective agreement, even if the forces on Parliament Hill were unified. In your remarks, you said that the bill does not uphold the commitment guaranteeing the employment of all employees of the House of Commons Security Services. I am very concerned by that.

Could you elaborate a bit further? Why won't your employment be guaranteed even though you have a collective agreement? Will this change your duties on Parliament Hill? Do you have an idea of what will happen to your jobs?

[Roch Lapensée]

Both Speakers put forward a motion in the House to guarantee the jobs after the creation of the new parliamentary protective service. We see a problem with the fact that the bill does not use the exact same wording. That leaves room for some doubt as to whether the potential future organization of operations could have an impact on employment. The jobs are currently guaranteed, but the bill makes no mention of what will happen in the future. If operations were structurally reorganized and jobs had to be cut or employees reassigned, our employment would no longer be guaranteed.

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

Does what has been proposed to us contain an obligation to abide by the collective agreement?

[Roch Lapensée]

As far as I know and according to what we have been told, the employer must respect the collective agreement until it expires.

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

And when will it expire?

[Roch Lapensée]

In 2017.

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

We are getting there slowly.