Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to add my remarks on the question of privilege raised yesterday by my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley.
I will remind the House of the incident. While my colleague was in an official House of Commons shuttle bus, an RCMP officer refused him, as well as some other members of the House, access to the parliamentary precinct.
That physical obstruction impeded him from performing his parliamentary duties, which I believe constitutes a prima facie breach of the member's privilege and therefore the privileges of all members of the House.
There were also some Conservative members on the bus with my colleague, and they too shared his concerns regarding what happened and their inability to return to the House, because as members will know, we had a number of votes yesterday.
I was very surprised to hear the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, who said that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has already dealt with this issue, and therefore the issue of obstructing members needs no further comment. I find that extremely troubling, which is why I wanted to add my voice to the discussion.
On page 75 of Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, Erskine May defines parliamentary privilege as:
Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively…and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions.
These functions are critical to the work that we all do here in the House and in Parliament to represent our constituents.
It is true that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has already considered this issue. In fact, it submitted its report on March 26. The committee considered a question of privilege raised by my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, who was denied access to Parliament Hill during the official visit of the President of Germany.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to the study by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, more specifically to the testimony from Marc Bosc, Acting Clerk of the House of Commons, Kevin Vickers, former Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons, and Patrick McDonell, current Sergeant-at-Arms but the then Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms and director general of security services.
During the course of their appearance, the process for determining the security arrangement during visits by foreign dignitaries to Parliament Hill was explained. It was stated that during such visits, extensive planning and numerous meetings take place between the three partners involved in providing security on the parliamentary precinct: the House of Commons security services, the RCMP and the Ottawa Police Service.
Mr. Vickers noted a key step towards interoperability was taken five years ago with the creation of the master security planning office, comprised of representatives from the Senate, House of Commons and RCMP.
The mandate of this office is to provide guidance and strategic direction and to ensure a proactive and coordinated security approach within the precinct. Mr. Vickers indicated that all official visits are accorded different security levels, ranging from levels one to five, with level one being the highest level of risk.
The visit on September 25, 2014—when the incident involving the member for Acadie—Bathurst occurred—was designated as a level four visit, during which it is common practice to not limit pedestrian access at closed points.
In the case of the member for Acadie—Bathurst, there was to be no stopping of pedestrians, regardless of whether they were members of Parliament or not. However, the member for Acadie—Bathurst was prevented from entering the precinct.
I think it is important that the House be aware of what the level of security was yesterday when the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and other members were blocked from accessing the parliamentary precinct.
When the committee examined the question of privilege raised by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, we were told that the House security services were going to double their efforts to ensure that front-line officers thoroughly understand that members must have unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct. However, the problem that arose yesterday involved an RCMP officer.
I would like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to something else that was said before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, when the committee was examining the question of privilege raised by the member for Acadie—Bathurst.
Bob Paulson, the RCMP commissioner, Gilles Michaud, the assistant commissioner and commanding officer of the national division of the RCMP, Mike Cabana, the deputy commissioner of federal policing for the RCMP, Charles Bordeleau, the chief of police for the Ottawa Police Service, and Murray Knowles, an inspector for the Ottawa Police Service, appeared before the committee.
Commissioner Paulson gave the committee an overview of the RCMP's role on Parliament Hill and during visits by foreign dignitaries. The RCMP is responsible for securing the grounds of Parliament Hill and ensuring the safety of the Prime Minister. The RCMP is also responsible for the safety and security of visiting dignitaries when they are outside the buildings that make up the parliamentary precinct. The RCMP is often faced with competing security priorities. Commissioner Paulson said that the RCMP takes every measure possible to ensure that its security operations do not impede parliamentarians.