Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Issue 8 - Evidence - June 4, 2015
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 4, 2015
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 8:35 a.m., in public, to examine the subject matter of those elements contained in Division 10 of Part 3 of Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015, and other measures; and for the consideration of administrative matters; and in camera for the consideration of administrative and other matters.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We will go right to the public portion of the agenda, starting with Item 1, adoption of minutes of proceedings from the May 14 meeting.
Senator Tkachuk: So moved.
The Chair: The second item is referral from the Senate to examine the subject matter of Bill C-59, Division 10 of Part 3 — creation of the parliamentary protective services.
Michel Patrice, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel and Chief, Parliamentary Precinct Services, Senate of Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[Translation]
I am joined by Gilles Duguay, Director General of Parliamentary Precinct Services.
[English]
Also with me is Ginette Fortune, Parliamentary Counsel in my office. We are here to answer your questions after I make a presentation first. Ginette has been involved in the minutiae of the bill. If you have any specific questions about it, she will be able to answer.
We are here to speak about Division 10, Part 3, of Bill C-59, the budget implementation act, which proposes an amendment to the Parliament of Canada Act in order to establish the parliamentary protective services. The Senate has been involved in the drafting of this proposed legislation along with legal counsel from the House of Commons, the RCMP, PCO, Public Safety and Justice Canada. This bill was drafted following the adoption of the motion by both houses in February 2015. The motion invited the RCMP to lead operational security throughout the parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill in an integrated security force.
Under the leadership of the late Speaker Nolin and Speaker Housakos, we have been engaged in discussions and negotiations with the relevant parties. From the outset, we have been guided by the six principles established by Speaker Nolin. Those principles were: This new service must respect the privilege, immunities and powers of the respective houses and their members. The Speakers must have policy oversight. We must ensure continuous employment of our security personnel. Funding of this new service must be centralized through a single vote. The Speakers must be involved in the selection of the new director who is to be an RCMP officer. Any policing activities into allegations or complaints of criminal activity must be performed by peace officers outside the service in accordance with established protocol.
During these discussions between the parties, it became clear that legislation was required to put into effect the motion adopted by the houses. I must say that this proposed legislation is in line with past initiatives agreed to by this committee respecting security. The model that is established through this proposed legislation is analogous to the one that this committee approved back in 2010.
Division 10 of Part 3 proposed to amend the Parliament of Canada Act to create that new entity, not unlike the Library of Parliament model, called the parliamentary protective service, which would have legal personality and would be responsible for all matters relating to physical security throughout the parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill.
According to the draft legislation, the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Speaker of the Senate would be responsible for the parliamentary protective service as per their role as custodians of the powers, privileges, rights and immunities of the respective houses and the members of each of those houses. This service will be also under the joint general policy direction of the Speakers, meaning they will have policy oversight.
This director of the parliamentary protective service will have the control and management of the service, meaning that he or she will be responsible for the day-to-day operation of that service. The director will be a serving RCMP member and will be selected through a transparent and consultative process in which our Speakers are involved.
The director will be accountable to the Speakers for the management and performance of the parliamentary protective service. He will also, as you understand, be accountable to the RCMP commissioner through the RCMP chain of command to ensure that the RCMP meets its responsibility according to the terms of service that is included in the arrangement between the Speakers, the Minister of Public Safety and the RCMP. All RCMP members who serve in the PPS, including the director, will continue to be employed by the RCMP. Further, the legislation states that the Speakers of the House of Commons and the Senate will enter into an arrangement with the Minister of Public Safety and the RCMP to provide the physical security service through the parliamentary precinct and Parliament Hill.
The new service will have no responsibility for matters such as information management and information technology infrastructure, information technology security, cybersecurity, or the sharing and protection of data or things like the business continuity plan. These services will continue to be provided by each house respectively.
In addition, the RCMP, as I said, will have no responsibility for investigating parliamentarians or parliamentary staff for criminal activity or offences. As per one of the principles, if there is such allegation of criminal activity or complaints, then this will be referred to a service outside this parliamentary precinct service. No member of the RCMP in that service would be involved in any such activity.
This service and statute means there will be one employer for all security personnel, meaning our security staff and the security staff of the House of Commons, and that will obviously facilitate the integration and the creation of one chain of command.
Much care has been taken to ensure that all our employees' rights and their terms and employment conditions are respected to the fullest and that nobody will lose their job by the creation of that new service. That was one aspect of the motion that was passed by both houses. They will continue to occupy their positions within the new service.
Also, establishing this service through legislation allows for the creation of a single vote process, meaning that all the funding will go directly to that organization and there will be one consolidated vote for security services. The way it will be done is that before each fiscal year, the Speakers of both houses will instruct the director to prepare an estimate in terms of their needs for the coming fiscal year. The Speakers will then consider the estimates and challenge where necessary the director in terms of the needs. Once they approve it, they will transmit it to the President of Treasury Board for inclusion in the estimates. Like I said, it is similar to what is happening in relation to the Library of Parliament.
This legislation has also been drafted to avoid limiting any of the powers, privileges, rights and immunities of the Senate, the House of Commons and their members. There is a specific clause in the draft legislation addressing that effect.
It is through their roles as the custodians of parliamentary privilege that the Speakers would enter into the agreement with the RCMP, the House of Commons and the Minister of Public Safety. This arrangement will also include provisions that will protect the various privileges of each house, including control over proceedings and the right of access to members.
In conclusion, there are many steps to be taken before fully integrated security operations in the precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill are realized. The partners in this new and diverse body — the Senate, House of Commons and the RCMP — are working diligently on transition right now.
We're open for any questions you may have. Thank you, senators.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much, Michel. That was very detailed and touched on a number of my questions. One of the things was the director must be a member of the RCMP, a current member. In the past, our directors have been retired military or RCMP. In this case, they have to be a serving member of the RCMP.
Mr. Patrice: Yes, that's correct.
Senator Cordy: Second, when I read 79.57, and I think you answered my question, it talks about the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons getting the estimates of the sums that will be required. It says "to pay the service.'' When I was reading it, I wasn't sure if that was the RCMP service money that would be paid directly to the RCMP, but I think you indicated that that is to pay for the entire protective services contract.
Mr. Patrice: That's correct.
Senator Cordy: RCMP are not unionized. Yet, when I read the changes made, there are a number of things that seem to be union terminologies, like bargaining agent and arbitrary award.
Mr. Patrice: It is because both the House of Commons security staff and the Senate security staff are unionized.
Senator Cordy: Right.
Mr. Patrice: These provisions are included to address and continue their collective bargaining rights and recognize their union. There's also a provision in it that will allow, if there's a need or if there's a wish, I guess, a will, for the unions to merge into one union. Right now, it is two separate unions. There's the Senate Protective Services Employees Association and there is the House of Commons Security Services Employees Association.
Senator Cordy: The RCMP would not be included in that at all.
Mr. Patrice: That's right. I understand, following a Supreme Court decision, that they're looking at a process. The RCMP has a year to allow the unionization process, but it has nothing to do with this service.
Senator Cordy: Even though they will all be doing the same thing, some will be unionized and some won't be, so what about differences in salary and differences in vacation pay, all those kinds of things, benefits?
Mr. Patrice: Definitely there will be differences in terms of the RCMP members and the other security personnel, if I may call them that, those who are not RCMP members. That being said, the terms and conditions of the House of Commons and Senate staff are quite analogous. They're quite similar, their terms and conditions and pay and so on. We will have an item later on to discuss that in the in camera portion.
Senator Downe: You talked about the merger of the forces and that there would be no job loss. Is it safe to assume on a go-forward basis that all the new people hired will be members of the RCMP?
Mr. Patrice: No, we could not say that because presumably all the new hires will be done through the new service. I'm expecting, as history unfolds and we will see if it's true or not, that there will be replacements in terms of normal operations and staff. They're going to hire the equivalent of the security guards that are in that new unit, and there will be movement of personnel within the RCMP.
I don't know how many RCMP members will be in that new service but in terms of the security guards, and Gilles can correct me, about 400 persons will be the security personnel — the two forces of the Senate and the House of Commons combined.
Senator Downe: Will the salaries be comparable between the forces?
Mr. Patrice: Between the two forces, yes.
Senator Downe: Between the RCMP and Senate security personnel?
Mr. Patrice: Most likely not.
Gilles Duguay, Director General, Parliamentary Precinct Services, Senate of Canada: There's a major difference in salary.
Senator Downe: The RCMP salaries are higher.
Mr. Duguay: Yes. They're also peace officers and our security guards are not.
Senator Downe: I appreciate that.
You mentioned on a couple of occasions the similarities with the Library of Parliament. However, the Library of Parliament reports to the Speakers and has a Joint Parliamentary Committee of senators and MPs to deal with a lot of issues and make recommendations too, but no decisions. Will there be a similar committee on security or will the Speakers be swamped with all this?
The Chair: There will be a joint committee of the House of Commons and Senate with two co-chairs. My suggestion going forward, and we're not there yet, would be that Senator White would be the ideal person to be the co-chair from our side, and there will be somebody from the other side.
We are in the process with Speaker Scheer to work out the details. Obviously, much of the work will commence this summer. The other side, I suspect, will be preoccupied with other things. Nonetheless, the representatives from our side will probably take a lead role in the overview.
Senator Downe: The head of the service reports to the commissioner of the RCMP and to the Speakers; is that correct?
Mr. Patrice: That's right.
Senator Downe: That's a very difficult job.
Senator Tannas: Senator Downe has more or less asked my question. Maybe I will frame it a little differently. The head of the service will be an active RCMP member. The PPS will have current staff in it and will also have current RCMP members mixed in. Mr. Patrice, you said it is your expectation that the PPS will continue to hire civilians for that force. Is that your hope or do you have an expectation based on some kind of assurance or statement by the RCMP? It seems that if the boss is the RCMP and there's a bunch of guys from the RCMP mixed with this other crowd, I would assume they would favour hiring more RCMP as the force draws down through attrition but you have said otherwise. What makes you say otherwise?
Mr. Duguay: Well, the RCMP will perform the function of the PPS members. Obviously, as a manager you would want, as much as possible, to reduce your budget. At this very moment, the RCMP are looking at a possible advantage in having current members of House of Commons and Senate Protective Services at the vehicle screening facility to facilitate the movement of parliamentarians.
Senator Tannas: It makes financial sense.
Mr. Patrice: That's right.
Mr. Duguay: They do the same function.
Senator Wells: I want to reference proposed section 79.53. For the convenience of my colleagues, it speaks to the services responsible for all matters with respect to physical security throughout the parliamentary precinct and Parliament Hill.
Of course, there are parliamentary offices that aren't necessarily on Parliament Hill. Could you help to define the difference between "Parliament Hill'' and "parliamentary precinct'' and how that affects buildings like the Victoria Building and the Senate transition to the Government Conference Centre?
Mr. Patrice: Yes. "Parliament Hill'' actually is a reference to the grounds of Parliament Hill. This traditionally has never been under the jurisdiction of the Speakers. Through this bill, it will come under the jurisdiction of the Speakers.
"Parliamentary precinct'' is defined in the bill in terms of what it comprises. It is not limited to buildings on Parliament Hill, but also includes all offices occupied by senators or MPs wherever located, such as Wellington Street, Sparks Street and all offices where there's personnel from the Senate, the House of Commons or the Library of Parliament. It also includes, for the purpose of this definition, the Office of the Senate Ethics Officer. That's the traditional common-law definition of what constitutes parliamentary precinct. For the first time, it has been included in proposed legislation.
Senator Wells: Are the private roads on Parliament Hill, where we drive each day, versus the public roads that separate the buildings within the precinct that you described, which is mostly Wellington Street, part of the protected zone covered by the bill?
Mr. Patrice: The roads on Parliament Hill?
Senator Wells: Yes.
Mr. Patrice: Yes, they would be covered. That being said, one must recognize that these are also under Public Works. The buildings and grounds are owned by the Crown. Public Works has jurisdiction over, for example, traffic and things of that nature. Obviously, the parliamentary precinct protective services are quite involved in terms of providing the physical security of those areas.
You are not talking about Wellington Street but about the area inside the gates.
Senator Wells: I was asking also about Wellington Street because of parliamentarians going to their offices.
Mr. Patrice: Wellington Street would be the City of Ottawa.
Senator Wells: Parliamentarians going to their place of work when the Senate moves to the temporary —
Mr. Patrice: The GCC, yes.
Senator Wells: That would also be —
Mr. Patrice: The Government Conference Centre, once occupied by the Senate, will also form part of the parliamentary precinct.
Senator Tkachuk: Thank you for the presentation. I'm happy to see the final combination of the protective units on Parliament Hill into one unit. Explain to me the governance. I'm not sure of the governance. I understand the Speakers are responsible for it. What roles do the two committees play — the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons and the Internal Economy Committee of the Senate, if any? Do the two Speakers expect there to be a governance committee? What has happened to the Sergeant-at-Arms and the Usher of the Black Rod in the matter of security?
Mr. Patrice: I will start with the Sergeant-at-Arms and the Usher of the Black Rod from the Senate perspective. The role of the Usher of the Black Rod will remain unchanged. There is a protocol right now between our security service and the Black Rod because the Black Rod is responsible for security within the chamber and that protocol will continue to be in force until there's a need to change it or until it is changed to something else. The role of our Black Rod will remain unchanged.
In terms of the Sergeant-at-Arms, I assume they'll change a bit of their responsibility in terms of the House of Commons, but I could not speak to that. Obviously, all the traditional functions will remain within their responsibilities. There's no doubt about that.
In relation to the governance, yes, now the Speakers as custodians of the privilege are basically the persons responsible for that service. Speaker Housakos mentioned the possibility that a committee be established to assist in terms of the ongoing operation, the policy oversights. For example, policy in relation to security will continue to be set by the houses. Obviously, there's going to be an involvement and an input from this committee, from the Speaker or from the committee that's going to be formed to assist the Speaker in establishing policy. Implementation or execution of the policy, the day-to-day operation, will be the responsibility of the director of parliamentary precinct services. I'm not sure if that —
The Chair: I can also elaborate. There will a joint parliamentary committee put together by the two Speakers to advise on security issues. It will be an oversight committee, and it will be that committee in conjunction with the Speakers that will set general policy, general overview and guidelines.
Senator Tkachuk: You said a very important word, chairman. You said "advisory'' committee. An advisory committee doesn't really have any authority whatsoever.
The Chair: The authority, if you look at the bill and the MOU, rests with the Speakers, to answer your question. That's where the authority rests, and we will be taking advice from the joint parliamentary committee of senators and parliamentarians, which the two Speakers will name. That's the way the governance is put together. You asked how the governance is put together. In the bill, as I understand it, and in the MOU, that's how the governance would work.
Senator Tkachuk: Will there be a piece of paper somewhere that will be here that will say that, or is it just up to the Speaker to say whether he or she wants an advisory committee? There is nothing in here that says they have to have an advisory committee. They could just run it on their own.
Mr. Patrice: It's not in the legislation. That will be for each house to decide how it wants to support the Speaker or support itself, yes. I expect, presumably, there will be discussion in this committee about that structure, that governance, as there is now.
Senator Tkachuk: Okay. I'm still a little confused on the Black Rod and the Sergeant-at-Arms. Mr. Vickers was in charge of security on the other side, if I'm not mistaken.
Mr. Patrice: Yes.
Senator Tkachuk: As the Sergeant-at-Arms. He's gone. I'm not sure who the Sergeant-at-Arms is over there now. They don't seem to have any role here. How do you coordinate those services? They're supposed to be in charge of the house and the Senate, or at least that's what I understood from what you're telling me, but there is nothing here that says anything about that. It's as if they don't exist in the matters of security, which seems kind of odd to me.
Mr. Patrice: Again, it's a responsibility of each house to decide in terms of how they set their own affairs. Our Black Rod, for the longest period of time and I don't know since when, is not responsible for security for the Senate. His responsibility for security is within the chamber.
Senator Tkachuk: I understand that.
Mr. Patrice: So in relation to our own situation, it doesn't affect or change anything in terms of the role of the Black Rod in terms of how security is provided for the Senate. I'm going to say for the Senate. I cannot speak for the House of Commons. Right now, it's Pat McDonell who is the acting Sergeant-at-Arms for the House of Commons.
The Chair: If I could also elaborate on that answer, Senator Tkachuk, historically, the Sergeant-at-Arms and the Black Rod respond to the Speakers of the chambers. Constitutionally, whenever there is, for example, disruption in the chambers, the Black Rod or Sergeant-at-Arms would respond to the wishes of the Speakers to remove somebody or to discipline somebody, as the case may be. To answer your question, historically, the Sergeant-at-Arms is in charge of House of Commons security, as is the Black Rod in the Senate, and they are accountable to the Speakers.
Senator Tkachuk: It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. I just want to know what happened to them. Vickers was in charge of security on the house side as the Sergeant-at-Arms. He no longer exists. I want to know if he's sort of written out of the picture. You have advisory committees, but we know what happened to the advisory committees on the new building over there. They were just gotten rid of. Not that I know of —
The Chair: Michel, correct me if I'm mistaken. I assume the Sergeant-at-Arms and the Black Rod would still be in charge of the quorum in the chamber, correct?
Mr. Patrice: Yes.
The Chair: They are the ones that would ask security to come in if required, correct?
Mr. Patrice: Yes, definitely. And obviously the position of the Black Rod and the Sergeant-at-Arms form part of what is traditionally the constitutional provision in the role of the Speakers as part of their principle.
Maybe Gilles, because he has been in discussion with the two other parties, can add something.
Mr. Duguay: If there is anything at this juncture, the house will adopt the same model that we have, i.e., currently we have a protocol between us, security, SPS, and the Black Rod as to how we would intervene in the chamber. In our discussion now with Pat and Gilles Michaud, who is the commanding officer of the RCMP, the chamber belongs to the institution. We all agreed to that. Yes, the role of the Sergeant-at-Arms will not be the same because he doesn't have security reporting to him. They are going to have to change their model, and their model will be similar to what we have here.
Senator Tkachuk: Okay. It seems it was changed for them. It's already done in here, right? They don't have to change anything. It's over. This is the new model right here. Governance is basically the two Speakers. It just seems odd there is no board or hierarchy. I just don't know how all that's going to work. We'll see. The Speaker in the Senate doesn't necessarily have to be, although at this time he is, the chair of Internal Economy. If that gets changed, then there is a whole new dynamic at play here, I think.
Anyway, they're just questions that I have. I'm very happy we're doing this. I do have some concerns about governance, though. I really do.
Senator Marshall: Michel, that new position, director of parliamentary protective services, where exactly will that fit in the organization? Right now, you report to the Speaker, I understand. Mr. Duguay reports to you, and I think Mr. McDonald reports to Mr. Duguay; is that correct? Where does this one fit into our organizational structure?
Mr. Patrice: It's a totally separate entity. He doesn't report in terms of the administrative structure. He's not included in the Senate administrative structure. It's a separate body. It's a separate entity with its own existence, and that director will report directly to both Speakers.
Senator Marshall: What will be the relationship between that position and our protective services directorate?
Mr. Patrice: Our protective service directorate will cease to exist as of the coming-into-force of that bill. We will no longer have a protective service directorate at that time. Right now, we're engaged, and Gilles is engaged almost full time, in the transition phase of moving the responsibilities in relation to physical security to that new service. There are many working groups, seven working groups right now, because obviously there is much to be done administratively to effect that transfer of responsibility and people.
Senator Marshall: Who is moving? You're not moving and Mr. Duguay is not moving, and —
The Chair: Michel, maybe you could also elaborate on the corporate security side of the structure that is remaining.
Mr. Patrice: Mr. Duguay is not moving because Mr. Duguay is actually the director of the service, the parliamentary precinct services, which is more than security. It is also the accommodation and the building services. I always call it the LTVP, Long Term Vision Plan — real property planning. Mr. Duguay's role is beyond security.
Some of the functions related to security, as I pointed out, will not be transferred to the new service. I'm talking about information management and technology security, for example, which is a big component. It's very important for the institution that it remains inside the institution. As well, business continuity planning, health and safety and fire prevention — many functions — will not transfer to the physical security. Mr. McDonald will be responsible for the functions that remain within the Senate. He's not moving to the new service. He'll be responsible for all those security functions that will remain within the responsibility of the Senate.
Also, Mr. McDonald will serve as a liaison, our in-house expert on security, with that new service. There will be a transition period and we will need in-house advice and counsel in relation to security to better assist in terms of what we're talking about on policy oversight and new policy recommendations in relation to security. There will be recommendations from the new director of the parliamentary protective services in terms of new security measures. We need in-house expertise to validate and people speaking the same language with the knowledge base, so we have our own experts. That's the plan.
Senator Marshall: Of all the people who are now within the Senate and reporting up through to you, how many will stay with Mr. Duguay in that area and how many will be transferred to this new body? I'd like to know in terms of the number of people. Plus, I would also like to know the budget. Our budget for the Senate is $88 million. How much of that budget will be carved out for this new directorate or organization?
Mr. Patrice: About 12 people will remain within the Senate from that service and about 75 to 80 people will move to the new service.
Senator Marshall: How will that impact our budget?
Mr. Patrice: The numbers are approximate, and Gilles can correct me, but the overall SPS budget is about $7 million for the Senate.
Senator Marshall: Most of the budget will move out.
Mr. Patrice: That's right.
Senator Marshall: What impact will that have on the employees who remain behind? Will that affect their salaries?
Mr. Patrice: No, it won't affect their salaries or terms and conditions. For those who remain, we will keep the portion of the budget that relates to those positions.
Senator Marshall: As a follow-up to what Senator Tkachuk was talking about on governance, could we get a copy of the current organizational chart or the current governance structure as well as the proposed one? It's quite a significant change, and I would certainly like to see it on paper, not only with the positions but also with regard to any advisory or working committees so I can understand.
Mr. Patrice: We can provide the current organizational chart. In terms of the proposed organizational chart, you will understand that as it's the proposed new service and director of PPS, this has not been done yet. This will be in terms of his responsibility as he has control and management of the security service. That will come in due time, but it doesn't exist yet.
Senator Marshall: When will the new one be available? We're talking about significant changes and about changes to our budget and we're moving people. You're going to give me the current organizational chart, so I'll know where we are, but how am I to know where we're going if there is not even a proposal on the table?
Mr. Duguay: Obviously, at this juncture it's still a work in progress because we are into a transition phase. One thing I would like to specify, perhaps to ease your fear, is that what we currently have is staying in terms of policies.
For as long as we don't have a new policy for this new creation that is PPS, the director will more or less manage the current Senate policies on security. In that transition phase, that's where our role comes in, and we work with the new service. Ultimately, a new policy will be sanctioned by both Speakers. It won't be a creation of the RCMP or a creation of the new director. It will be a creation of both institutions that agree to it.
Senator Marshall: Everybody around the table would like to see the proposed new governance structure because, effectively, once the legislation is passed, I would think it will pick up speed and we'll need something. I'll move on. I would like to see the current one, and then when you get the new one, I would like to see the new one.
I have a couple other questions specific to the bill. Later on during this meeting, we're going to be asked to ratify a collective agreement that goes to September 30, 2017. Looking at clause 103, could you tell us what that means in the context of the collective agreement that we're going to be asked to ratify this morning? The collective agreement goes to September 30, 2017. Do we anticipate that remaining in effect and then in 2017 everybody will come together?
Mr. Patrice: The collective agreement that you will be asked to ratify later in the in-camera portion of this meeting will continue to be in effect. If you want more specifics, Ginette will answer.
Senator Marshall: It will continue and later down the road we will decide.
Mr. Patrice: Later down the road, it will be a negotiation between the management of the new service and its employees as the Senate will no longer be involved.
Senator Marshall: I understand.
My last question relates to clauses 115 and 116 about outstanding complaints and outstanding grievances. Are there a lot of complaints and grievances? In other organizations where I've worked there were lots, I just would like to know whether there are significant numbers.
Peter Nunan, Manager, Labour Relations, Learning and Policies, Senate of Canada: We have no outstanding grievances. On the house side they have quite a few.
Senator Tkachuk: I would like to go back to some of my original concerns. I sort of saw governance as being like a Board of Internal Economy and the two Speakers being responsible like the chairmen of the board. You have to separate policy from execution and administration. Here we have the CEO reporting directly to the Speakers of each institution. There is no formal board responsible for anything or policy. I'm going to give you an example. Who makes the decision on locking doors? Tell me how that would work in this new situation? Should we lock doors? We decided on this side to lock doors, and they should have done that on the house side and we wouldn't have had October. But they decided, for whatever reasons they had not to lock doors. How would that decision go up the system? Who would decide that?
Mr. Duguay: Obviously, if it was an emergency, it would be up to the director. There's no question about this.
Senator Tkachuk: This was permanent, so you need the ID card.
Mr. Duguay: That would be an internal consultation and something that would have to be approved by the Speakers.
Senator Tkachuk: Internal Economy and the board in the house would have nothing to do with it?
Mr. Duguay: It all depends how the Speakers want to structure or surround themselves and have a process where the director would be who he is consulting with.
Senator Tkachuk: The two Speakers are acting like two CEOs, right? That's the way they are acting. They are not acting as chairman or heads of policy; they're acting as two CEOs. Yes? No? They don't have to go anywhere.
Guns, what would happen with guns? Who would decide that? How would that work? How would the decision on guns be made here? The way it was before, it would go to the board and go to Internal Economy.
The Chair: If I may answer that, from what I understand clearly from the bill, from the MOU, from our discussions right now with Speaker Scheer, with Paulson, anything operational would be the new security force. To answer your question, we would not have a say about what gun, where, how the guns — that's an operational question. Anything to do with policy and guidance, for example, when doors will be locked, if Parliament has to be shut down, for example, those are decisions that the Speakers —
Senator Tkachuk: Here we go, chairman. The question of guns is a question of policy. How those guns are organized is a question of operations. But the question of should we have guns in Parliament is a policy question. Who decides that?
The Chair: I think that train has left the station.
Mr. Patrice: You're right in saying it's a policy.
Senator Tkachuk: I just want to know where it is.
Mr. Patrice: It's a policy question, and right now we have the guns. That policy question has been made, but —
Senator Tkachuk: You're avoiding the question.
Mr. Patrice: Yes, it's a policy question. For example, if we go reverse, if the new director of security thinks that nobody should be armed —
Senator Tkachuk: Yes?
Mr. Patrice: We'll go the opposite. He'll make his recommendation to the Speakers. He's the expert, or she is the expert, and will make recommendations in terms of policy and security policy, security accreditation, all those issues in relation to policy. They will make a recommendation to the Speakers from their expert knowledge in terms of security, and the Speakers will decide at the end of the day.
You're right. The legislation doesn't provide for a board or any other kind of governance structure other than the Speakers. But the houses can decide if they want to implement such a structure. That is within their internal affairs and their internal rights to manage their affairs the way they wish to. The Speaker mentioned that he would want a joint committee in the same manner that the Library of Parliament has been established. It's possible that this committee decides to name an advisory committee to assist the Speaker, and the House of Commons will do the same, but the House of Commons may decide not to. This is within your realm.
The Chair: I think the question has been answered in detail.
Senator Tkachuk: I think it's still very confusing.
The Chair: You can amend the legislation if you wish, but, at the end of the day, Speaker Scheer and I have made it clear that we are going to name a parliamentary joint committee made up of parliamentarians from the House of Commons and the Senate, and they will be giving overview and guidance and setting policy on our behalf. It's not something Speaker Scheer and I have a particular interest in to be focussing on. To answer your question, no, it will not be Internal Economies.
Senator Tkachuk: I understand that Speaker Scheer and you are wonderful people and will do all the right things. You may not think so, but at some time changes are made and people are not there and Speaker Scheer is not there. There has to be some kind of a piece of paper somewhere that says, "Here is the way things are going be run, Mr. New Speaker, and here is what you should do.'' But there is no mandate now to do any of that. That is my concern.
The Chair: I do agree with you that this legislation is not very flexible.
Senator Furey: My question, Michel, pertains to a point raised by Senator Tannas and Senator Downe. The new director presumably will be a high-ranking RCMP officer, and that person will be charged with answering to the Speakers and also to the Commissioner of the RCMP. You indicated that, in the event of a criminal investigation into a parliamentarian, nobody within that structure would have any responsibility or any input into it.
Mr. Patrice: That's right.
Senator Furey: If you have the head of the service answering to the Commissioner, what sort of fictional firewall do you see being put up there? How do you see that being managed if he or she answers to the Commissioner?
Mr. Patrice: There is definitely a commitment on their part, because they also don't want to get involved. The people that are inside don't want to get involved in those things. They have a special division anyway that takes care of criminal investigations or sensitive investigations within the RCMP, Ottawa Division, I think it's called.
Senator Furey: With the greatest of respect, it's easy to say that, but the reality is you've got a director of security, and let's say you have an ongoing criminal investigation into a parliamentarian or more than one parliamentarian. That investigation presumably will be done by the RCMP. You have a director of security answering to the Commissioner of the RCMP. I'm just puzzling in my mind how that will work.
Mr. Duguay: I have been involved in major investigations, and I can assure you that it is not in the interests of the investigator to have access to information that would corrupt your criminal investigation in the first place. That's why, within police, we always build walls, what we call China walls, between that type of information and criminal investigations. Now, with the Stinchcombe decision, which is full disclosure, the police have to lay out exactly where they got that information from.
Senator Furey: Thank you.
The Chair: If I can ask Senator Furey to come take the chair? I have to step out. I have another arrangement.
Senator White: We'll change everything now.
The Chair: You guys are in very good hands. I think when I get back, you'll still be on the same item.
Senator George J. Furey (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
Senator White: Thank you very much, folks. I'm really pleased to see the legislation. I know Michel and I and Gilles and I spoke about the need for legislation in I think March, or January, after we visited Capitol Hill, which is really the only way they could do this. I know that in 2012 we had looked at some of this around the Australian model, which is similar to what this will end up being, except in Australia, Canberra is policed by the Australian federal police, as is their equivalent to Parliament Hill.
The concern I guess I'm going to express now is the fact that we still have a different police service two centimetres off Parliament Hill, and I guess my question is whether or not we've given consideration to having all of our parliamentary precinct security on both sides sworn in as special constables in the province — most of what they're going to deal with is going to be provincial trespass legislation and things like that — so they can deal with those types of issues and not just criminal matters that they can hand off to the RCMP. If not, I guess I would suggest we actually, in a discussion with Pat McDonell, look at having all of our parliamentary folks sworn in as special constables through the Ottawa police.
Mr. Duguay: It is a consideration, but I also know that the OPP has done a review of the security arrangement. As part of the review, they also commented about the excellent relationship that the RCMP had with Ottawa city police. It is something that obviously will be discussed in that transitional phase. Sure.
Senator White: I'm good. I think this is good news, folks. Thanks.
Senator Lang: I know we're coming to the end of the debate on this, and I just wanted to first of all recognize the concern that was brought forward by Senator Tkachuk and by Senator Marshall with respect to the governance and who is responsible. I would put to this body that, over the summer months, the powers that be look at the responsibility between the two houses and how this particular advisory committee should be structured and what responsibilities they would have, and then bring in legislation to ensure that it be recognized that there is a body that's responsible. That's just one aspect.
The other aspect is that I wish to register a concern I have as a parliamentarian and member of the Senate. I am getting quite concerned as I go into the House of Commons and see the number of guards doing the work that we are asking them to do to the extent that they are armed and the fear that is being created. When we first went into this and experienced what happened here on October 22, it was my understanding that we were going to have an overall plan that would quickly be put into effect, primarily looking at the perimeter of Parliament Hill as opposed to arming the doors as we walk in to the extent that they're armed.
That's what should be done. The atmosphere that has been created around the doors as you walk in is not advantageous for the public or for me. Quite frankly, I don't know how safe we are with that many people carrying guns in close proximity if something were to occur, quite honestly — if that moment were to happen.
I want to make it clear that we have to understand where we're going with this. I want the public to come in knowing and thinking that this is their house. If you are going to do that type of screening, then you should do it outside at the perimeter of Parliament Hill, not at the door or under the Peace Tower.
I would like to know the costs. I'm quite concerned about that. For our safety, there seems to be no end to the money. And I don't know where it's coming from. I would like to see a plan of what this is going to cost at the end of the day in respect of all the moves that are being made and the projections of that cost and where that money is coming from. Perhaps somebody can tell me that — and also the increase in personnel.
Mr. Patrice: With respect to cost, as this portion of the meeting is in public, it is advised not to disclose cost in relation to security. The money will come from the existing budgets of the Senate, the House of Commons and the RCMP devoted to security on Parliament Hill. All these budgets allocated to those different organizations will be consolidated into one new parliamentary precinct service. In terms of how much this project will cost, obviously in the transition period and setting up of the service — and I have no personal knowledge — one can expect additional costs for operations of the service and the new organization.
After that, whether there's going to be cost saving through efficiencies once they're integrated into one service, one would hope so. But I am in no position at this time to predict one or the other.
Senator Lang: I want to register my concern. October 22 was five months ago. I know that some changes have been made, but it would seem to me that at least a projected budget would be put together to indicate what costs we might be looking at. Has a projected budget been put together? Can we hear what those numbers are?
Mr. Duguay: At this juncture for us, many reviews still have to be completed. One of the most important reviews right now is being done by Defence Research Development Canada. They are looking at everything from operational policy to the environment to physical structure. They're the ones that recommended to the RCMP the security posture at the Vancouver Olympics. Once we have all the reviews in place and working with the new director of PPS then we will be in a better position to say how many resources we need, how many should be armed, where they should be located with the most efficiency.
That will be tested against the model that will be put in place in the event of such an attack. Are we properly equipped and resourced to confront an attack like that?
Mr. Patrice: As you know, following the incident on October 22, we came before this committee for enhanced security measures. They were discussed in camera so we won't discuss them here. Obviously, there was an increase in costs following that because we put some additional security measures in place.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Lang, to add to that, obviously a portion of this will have to come from the RCMP in their estimates. As Michel has said, the actual discussion on the budget is an in-camera discussion before it is made public.
Senator Munson: I have an observation, and I know you probably can't have an answer for it. Security is quite visible on Parliament Hill with the submachine guns we see and bumping into police officers every step of the way inside the Hill. Senator Wells brought up the parliamentary precinct, and I'm sure this has been thought about. In conversations with many people who work on the Hill and take our buses to and from the Victoria Building and other buildings, that is in the city of Ottawa. There are people who feel that parliamentarians are sitting ducks in those buses as you can follow the pattern of those bus routes each and every day. It wouldn't take much of a genius to walk up O'Connor Street, come around the corner, jump on a bus and do something awful.
I would like to have that on the record in terms of how, when you are creating this new service, the integration works with that kind of scenario. They won't say it publicly but our bus drivers and the House of Commons bus drivers are very nervous about the potential of something awful happening. It is right there. The guns and other protections are all pointed this way towards the Peace Tower, but I'm sure that some of the great protective thinkers must have thought of these scenarios. I would sincerely hope that this is taken into account. The buses run in a pattern as people have to come and go from their offices all the time.
The Deputy Chair: That's something we will discuss in camera in terms of a strategy.
Senator Downe: I would like to follow up on questions asked earlier. Could it be concluded that the person we have heading this security service now will be a permanent member of the RCMP, whose future career depends to a large degree on the Commissioner of the RCMP, to whom this person reports? They also report to the two Speakers who, after they leave here, have nothing to do with their career prospects.
Do the Speakers, in effect, become advisers while the Commissioner of the RCMP is the decider? Let's be under no illusions: We are conceding authority for security decisions to the Commissioner of the RCMP in the final analysis. That's a statement.
Senator Marshall: I will follow up on what Senator Downe was saying. I support the proposed legislation, but I would like to see the current organizational structure and its relationship to this committee. Once the new governance structure has been determined, I would like to have a copy of it and how it relates to this committee.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator White: If I may, in follow-up to Senator Downe's comments, we have 198 police services in Canada that operate exactly the same way. They have a loose answerability to political will, often through police boards or advisory boards, and yet have an accountability that really doesn't report to that political will. I think what strengthens policing in Canada versus the United States, to be fair, is the fact that we follow what is called PO principles. That means we are accountable to the people, not to legislators, ultimately. Although I recognize the concern around it, it's no different than the police in P.E.I., Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan — and I can go on — where they have a commanding officer that has an accountability to the commissioner and an answerability to the political will of a Minister of Justice. In our case, our "Minister of Justice'' would be the two Speakers, so not really much different, I would say.
Senator Downe: We don't want to get in a long debate, but I disagree. This is the Parliament of Canada. It is not the Charlottetown City Hall we're talking about. On the division between the state and Parliament, we can go back to the Magna Carta. We're not going to get into that. My view, having read this, is let us not leave here under any illusion that the Speakers, in the final hour of decision, will have much to say.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, colleagues. We will take a minute to go in camera.
(The committee continued in camera).