Electoral Reform committee  Thank you.

Public Safety committee  In terms of funds allocated currently to both protective services — the Senate Protective Services and the House of Commons Protective Services — and to the RCMP on the ground, I would like to add one thing. A transitional provision will make it possible to transfer these amounts

Public Safety committee  First of all, I would like to say that it's an absolutely legitimate concern. You probably noticed when reviewing the bill that transitional provisions make up about two-thirds of the bill, and their sole purpose is to ensure that all the existing rights of these employees are pr

Public Safety committee  Actually, a fairly recent court decision asked for a review of the RCMP system. The court gave the government one year to look into it. So we don't know exactly what the future will bring, but it's an environment that is currently changing. What will the RCMP's status be? The cou

Public Safety committee  One important factor in the motion was to ensure that these members will be protected and that their job will be as secure in the new model. The bill does that in various ways. For example, it's ensured that all the employees from the Senate protective services and the the House

Public Safety committee  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.

Public Safety committee  The rules on bilingualism, whether for individuals already part of the protection and security services of the House, the Senate or the RCMP, remain exactly the same. The bill does not change them.

Public Safety committee  I would like to add that the RCMP is subject to the Official Languages Act.

Public Safety committee  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.

Public Safety committee  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

Public Safety committee  The ultimate authority...?

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

Public Safety committee  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

Public Safety committee  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

Public Safety committee  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.