HAFF Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, April 25, 2002

Á

1105

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.))

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon--Souris, PC)

The Chair

Á

1110

Mr. Johnston

Á

1115

The Chair

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport--Montmorency--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île-d'Orléans, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie--Bathurst, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Á

1120

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Major-General Gus Cloutier (Sergeant-at-Arms, House of Commons)

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Assistant Commissioner Dawson Hovey (Division Commander, Division A, National Capital Region, Royal Canadian Mounted Police)

Mr. Yvon Godin

Á

1125

A/Commr Dawson Hovey

Mr. Yvon Godin

A/Commr Dawson Hovey

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Chair

Mr. Michel Thivierge (Director, Security Services, Parliamentary Precinct Services, House of Commons)

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. Michel Thivierge

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. Michel Thivierge

Mr. Dale Johnston

Á

1130

A/Commr Dawson Hovey

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

MGen. Gus Cloutier

Á

1135

The Chair

A/Commr Dawson Hovey

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

A/Commr Dawson Hovey

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

A/Commr Dawson Hovey

Mr. Michel Guimond

Á

1140

MGen. Gus Cloutier

A/Commr Dawson Hovey

Mr. Michel Guimond

A/Commr Dawson Hovey

Á

1145

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West--Nepean, Lib.)

The Chair

MGen. Gus Cloutier

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

A/Commr Dawson Hovey

The Chair

A/Commr Dawson Hovey

The Chair

Á

1150

Mr. Rick Borotsik

A/Commr Dawson Hovey

Mr. Rick Borotsik

A/Commr Dawson Hovey

Mr. Michel Thivierge

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Michel Thivierge

Á

1155

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Rick Borotsik

MGen. Gus Cloutier

Mr. Rick Borotsik

MGen. Gus Cloutier

Mr. Rick Borotsik

MGen. Gus Cloutier

Mr. Rick Borotsik

MGen. Gus Cloutier

Mr. Rick Borotsik

MGen. Gus Cloutier

Mr. Rick Borotsik

An hon. member

MGen. Gus Cloutier

The Chair

Â

1200

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds--Grenville, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.)

Â

1205

A/Commr Dawson Hovey

Mr. Michel Thivierge

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Â

1210

Mr. Michel Thivierge

The Chair

An hon. member

The Chair

MGen. Gus Cloutier

Â

1215

The Chair

MGen. Gus Cloutier

Â

1220

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

A/Commr Dawson Hovey

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Chair

Mr. Michel Thivierge

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. Michel Thivierge

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Mr. John Richardson (Perth--Middlesex, Lib.)

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

---

NUMBER 060

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, April 25, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Could we begin? Before I introduce our guests, we have two or three items of housekeeping business.

    First of all, you should all have received a photograph. I'm not sure it's appropriate that I read the name out on record, but you have that photograph because you will recall that the committee in general received threatening phone calls. They were particularly of an anti-Semitic nature, from someone who was very angry.

    The photograph that has been circulated to you is of the person concerned, and you can discuss it if you wish. This is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, so you can do whatever you like. But it's circulated so that you and your staff know what this person looks like, because the phone calls were directed to the committee. That was some weeks ago, you'll recall, when we were discussing various aspects of security and so on. Is that okay?

    Rick, please.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon--Souris, PC): If there are any further phone calls, you will obviously make it known that I just joined the committee, that I wasn't with you before.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: Of course.

    So that's one item of housekeeping.

    Turning to the second item, I have just received a motion that Val Meredith replace Gerry Ritz on the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business, and it's moved by Dale Johnston.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: We look forward to seeing Val Meredith on this committee again.

    The third item has to do with our calendar of work. I discussed this in a report from our steering committee and so on, and you now have what we call a draft calendar. We're going to try to keep to it, but if we have to change it, we will change it.

    Today, as you can see listed under April 25, we're dealing with security on the Hill. We're returning to that matter. Next Tuesday, it's the House of Commons, and the Speaker will be appearing before us. We're doing main estimates, but we will also do the performance reports at the same time, the reports on plans and priorities.

    As we proceed into May, which begins next Thursday, a week from today, there's a round table on private members' business. I will come to that, but you do have this draft document that I promised here.

    The following Tuesday—by the way, that's the week before the break—we have the main estimates for the Chief Electoral Officer. At the request of the Bloc, I believe, that meeting will be extended somewhat, because we will be dealing with the main estimates. I think they're relatively straightforward, but the committee wants to address a number of matters having to do with Elections Canada.

    On the Thursday before the break, we have consideration of Bill S-34, which deals with the matter of the change in royal assent that we discussed the last time.

    I don't have anything down for after the break. Before we get to the break, however, I will extend this calendar forward. I welcome your suggestions, while realizing that I already have a number from the steering committee.

    Are you comfortable with that calendar, colleagues? Yes? Okay.

    Could you now look at the proposed format for the round table, which is to be held a week from today? Jamie, Patrice, and I came up with this idea of how it might proceed.

    We discussed this in steering committee, and we discussed it briefly at the open meeting the last time. The question we're dealing with is how we, the committee, should be re-engaged with private members' business in a useful way; in a way that picks up where we left off with the Canadian Alliance discussion of some months ago; and in a way that deals with the letters we have received from, for example, Mauril Bélanger and members who have a very special personal interest in it.

    Our suggestion is that we have a round table discussion that will be a public discussion. My suggestion is that it be televised. That will depend on availability of a room, but we will try to get one of the television rooms. If we do not, then under our own procedures, I will advise the media that we're going to have this meeting. I will arrange for a reasonably sized room and will hope the media will cover the meeting. So that's one thing. It will be televised.

    We will invite all members of the House. A letter of invitation will go out. We have no idea how many will come. The meeting will begin at 11 a.m. We will have lunch, so it will be a longer meeting than usual.

    A format is suggested here. There will be a brief opening statement by the chair, but that's is not so that I can give a speech. That idea is there so that we can say, both for ourselves, for the guests we have, and for the general public, what private members' business is at the moment. It will be a very short statement, and those who attend the meeting will have good documentation describing what the procedures are at the present time.

    The idea then is that this meeting—and I will be saying this to people who have written to the committee about their own particular problems with private members' business.... This will not be an occasion when we will receive members making a presentation to this committee about their own concerns. It will be a meeting to which we will invite them in order for them to participate in the discussion, but it will be a general discussion of private members' business. The suggestion is that we have these themes, A through D, which you see listed.

Á  (1110)  

    So I would start the meeting by saying how it is at the moment. That will take me 2 or 3 minutes, and we'll then have a short discussion of 20 to 30 minutes, on the purpose of private members' business—and you can see the items that are mentioned in the list. I will try to have us move on to our specific question: “Should all items of Private Members' Business be votable?” Some people are going to say yes and some are going to say no, but we will also ask what happens if they all become votable, and how that changes the present situation.

    When that's finished—and it might take five minutes, but it might take up to about 30 minutes; if we're going to go through all these items, it can't be more than 30 minutes—we'll get to “Selection of Votable Items”. These things will have been mentioned. If you mention them under item A, “Purpose of Private Members' Business”, I'll ask if we can return to them under the selection of items, under Item C.

    And under item D, we'll get to the matter of changes.

    The purpose of this meeting—and it says this in the draft invitation to colleagues—is not for this committee to make decisions. It's not for this committee to say we're going to change the filters and the criteria at that meeting, or anything like that. The purpose of this round table is to air those discussions. If we don't have information to back up points that members are making, we will gather it so that this committee can address the matter of private members' business in very concrete terms at a future meeting.

    You'll see on the draft agenda the background materials that you will have before that meeting occurs, and you'll see the draft invitation that is going to go to all members of Parliament.

    In addition to members of Parliament, we will invite members of the Speaker's staff and the Clerk's staff who are particularly well informed about private member's business. They will be in the room and we will invite them to join in whenever it's appropriate, but they will not be sitting there as expert witnesses so that people can question them and grill them on things. If it's appropriate, we'll simply ask them what something might mean, technically speaking. If they can answer briefly, they will answer.

    Colleagues, are you comfortable with this? I ask you that now, on the record, because when the time comes, we will have colleagues here who are not on this committee. As committee members, we want to participate, but we will want to listen to them as well. However, I will cut them off if we do in fact start getting long speeches that are irrelevant to the section or do not meet the purpose. I will tell them they'll be able to come back to make such a statement again when the committee considers the matter. I suspect I will need your support on that from time to time, so are you comfortable with this? Yes?

    Okay, colleagues, we will proceed with that. That is what we'll do.

    Dale, please.

    Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    On the material you were going to give us for background, are these things as a result of studies that have been done before? If studies have been done before, could we have those materials made available to us as well?

Á  (1115)  

    The Chair: James, you might want to answer this one.

    Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): “Reform of Private Members' Business: Issues and Options” was prepared last October, in connection with the committee's consideration of the Order of Reference precipitated by Mr. Breitkreuz in the House last June to make everything votable. A subsequent document was prepared in connection with that study, and we'll add that to the list of background materials. There have not been any major studies of private member's business since the McGrath report. All of the studies or reports that led to procedural changes are summarized in the first document, “The Evolution of Private Members' Business”. I can't think of any outstanding reports that have not been adopted by the House, but I will double check on that.

    The Chair: Michel Guimond.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport--Montmorency--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I have to tell you right off the bat that I find this discussion on private members' business very interesting, but out of courtesy for our witnesses, should we not hear their testimony so that they can leave as soon as possible? I imagine that they have more interesting things to do than to listen to our discussions about private members' business. I am not saying that it is not a worthwhile discussion, but I would like to have some input and I do not see why our witnesses... If they have nothing to do and want to stay to listen to our discussion, that is fine, but out of courtesy, we should let them finish and then discuss the committee's future business.

[English]

    The Chair: D'accord, and I apologize to the members of the committee—and particularly to our witnesses.

    I have to say, Michel, that if I don't get this stuff on the record by the next meeting, it will be too late, because we have to plan for a week Thursday. Witnesses—

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Are we planning to be there for 20 minutes? You don't have to do that in 20 minutes.

    The Chair: I want to again welcome to our committee Major-General Gus Cloutier, the Sergeant-at-Arms; Michel Thivierge, director of security services in the House of Commons; and Assistant Commissioner Dawson Hovey.

    Dawson, we appreciate your being here. I see your colleagues who successfully brought us back from our field expedition, Roger Brown and Line Carbonneau, are with you. They, too, are both most welcome.

    Colleagues, the witnesses are here to answer our questions, and simply that. They don't have a statement to make.

    Michel Guimond has a point of order.

    Please go ahead, Michel.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie--Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Chairman, if we could start our questions, it would be appreciated. If my colleagues do not mind, I would like to ask my questions first, because I have a speech to make in the House of Commons in about 20 minutes.

[English]

    The Chair: Dale, are you comfortable with that?

[Translation]

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Yes.

[English]

    The Chair: As I said, Dale was first on the list, but please go ahead, Yvon.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to my colleagues as well. I would like to welcome our witnesses to the committee.

    To begin with, I would like to raise something that came up last time, which is the number of francophones at the security checkpoint. I spoke to the people there and I can tell you that I was satisfied with the answers that I received about the percentage and so on. I would even suggest, as a warning, that the police officers at that checkpoint be assigned so that there are officers able to speak both languages. That way, we will not find ourselves in a situation some day where a unilingual police officer cannot communicate with the members of the public who are there. That is the comment that I wanted to make. I would like to thank you for your cooperation in this regard.

    I do not know whether the question will come up, but all the party whips signed a request to have the west door reopened only to our employees with lobby passes. It is not a question of principle or anything; we just need to be able to do our work effectively. I discussed this a bit with Mr. Cloutier before the meeting, and he told me that the Board of Internal Economy had to deal with this. I agree if that is the situation, but if you have any arguments as to why this should not happen, I would like to hear them, since I do not see why it cannot be done. We are talking about a very small number of employees, perhaps one or two with lobby passes who need to come in through that door. Sometimes we have to hurry in our work. You may think that going a few extra steps should not create a concern, but I can tell you that there are times when it does.

    My other question about security concerns the mirror; I am still wondering about that. I know why you use it under the vehicles, but I do not understand why there are people coming in the west door of the West Block facing Wellington Street with backpacks, and once they are inside there is no more checking done. It may look good to the public, but what does that do?

    Secondly, I asked a question about things people have in the trunk of their car. If there is a personal briefcase in the trunk, do you look to see what is inside? No. So I wonder if it is once again the idea of public perception. I would like to understand because I find it hard to comprehend how officers can open a trunk, see that there are things there and not look inside. Is this done for the public, to discourage people from putting anything in their trunk because it might be opened? Maybe this is a question I should not be asking here.

Á  (1120)  

    The Chair: Yvon, you ask the longest questions in this committee... [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, I learned it from you.

[English]

    The Chair: All right.

[Translation]

    An answer, please, gentlemen.

    Major-General Gus Cloutier (Sergeant-at-Arms, House of Commons): Mr. Chairman, on the first question, the restrictions on the west door were put in place in September 2001, as part of the House of Commons' security plan that was approved by the Board of Internal Economy. I did receive the letter that you mention. I would like to appear again at Internal Economy and present your comments there so that they can be taken into consideration.

    Now that you have raised this topic, I would like to express personal reservations. A certain number of passes have been distributed by each party whip. I am a bit concerned that, in some cases, these passes are not returned to the whip when an individual leaves or no longer works directly with the party whip. In those cases, we lose control, to a certain extent.

    Can you assure me, as whip, that you really control these passes and get them all back when you give them out to people during a Parliament? I do not know. It might be helpful to let me know before I go before the Internal Economy Board.

    The second point I would like to clarify is how many individuals right now would need this privilege. Those are the two points that I wanted to raise.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Rather than wasting time here, I will provide you with my comments on your arguments later in the day, if you like.

[English]

    The Chair: Commissioner Hovey.

[Translation]

    Assistant Commissioner Dawson Hovey (Division Commander, Division A, National Capital Region, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    We cannot always check people walking around with backpacks. From time to time, our members are vigilant on Parliament Hill, but

[English]

whenever possible, we try to verify people coming on the Hill with packsacks. As you pointed out, though, we do not have adequate resources to do this all the time.

[Translation]

    As for the trunks of vehicles,

[English]

this is again an issue of deterrence on our part, partly, but our members have to use their judgment to see if the person is a member of Parliament. We would expect that in their vehicle or that of a senator or somebody who has normal access to the Hill, it would be appropriate for them to bring something in a container of some kind in the trunk of their car. Our members would use their discretion and would not necessarily verify what is in the trunk in each case.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: I agree with that. The only thing is that you decide to open the trunk. What's the difference between opening the trunk and seeing a suitcase but not checking the suitcase? At your discretion, because he's a member of Parliament, you say you know he's coming in with something. But it's the action of opening the trunk and not going further. That's my question.

Á  (1125)  

    A/Commr Dawson Hovey: I see. Thank you for the precision.

    As of just prior to our appearance here last week, I would hope that when members of Parliament come in their own vehicles, they're given direct access and their trunks are not opened. If you have a vehicle with a pass and you're a member of Parliament, you would proceed directly to the Hill.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Still, it's the other person, not the member. He's coming in. You open the trunk and there's a suitcase in there. What is the purpose of opening the trunk and not going into the suitcase?

    A/Commr Dawson Hovey: It's to verify what's in the trunk. Obviously, there was enough there to satisfy our employee that there was no need to enquire further. But I do know that, in some cases, they've been asking what is in the container, whether it's a cardboard box or whether it's a suitcase.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Dale Johnston, then Michel Guimond and Marlene Catterall.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Just to follow up on Yvon's line of questioning, I think it's exactly the same kind of situation that you'd have at a border point. You don't tear everybody's car apart at the border point, but it's a deterrent. I'm sure the staff is trained to look for body language that would indicate suspicion, and I think that's a reasonable way to do things. To tear every piece of luggage and so forth apart...first of all, members of Parliament and senators would have containers that would have privileged information in them. They can't very well start rifling through that stuff.

    I actually wanted to ask about two things. The first question is on the integrated security system, which is a combination of electronic surveillance, access control measures, identification passes, closed-circuit televisions, and those sorts of things. How is the whole, overall thing working, in your estimation? Is there anything lacking in that, or anything that you feel you need?

    The Chair: Michel Thivierge.

    Mr. Michel Thivierge (Director, Security Services, Parliamentary Precinct Services, House of Commons): Sir, are you speaking about our internal, or the relationship between—

    Mr. Dale Johnston: I'm talking about the integrated House security system as you've reported it in this document reporting on plans and priorities.

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: Presently, Justice Building is the model we've been building on, the one where we've introduced this type of technology. We're able to monitor entry into rooms using cameras and other technologies in order to ensure that the environment is safe and secure. The information that we glean from this system allows us to respond and react to problems.

    Of course, we work very closely with the RCMP to gather intelligence or information pertaining to any potential threats, and we brief our people monitoring these systems to look for specific or particular things.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: So is Justice Building the model that all buildings are going to be designed on in the future?

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: Yes, sir, it is. It's the beginning of this project, and it's tightly linked into all the renovations that will be taking place on the Hill over the next few years.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: I was looking back through the minutes of the last meeting we had with you. Commissioner Hovey, you stated that you had about 15 members on the Hill prior to September 11. After September 11, you brought in an additional 15, for a total of 30. That was then followed by an additional 50, which, by my count, now makes 80. You now want to say the 50 transfers were brought in temporarily to deal with the situation at the time.

    Somewhere in there is the right amount. I don't think it's 15, and I don't think it's 80. Can you tell us what the right amount of RCMP would be for a properly sized contingent on the Hill in order to do the job? I can go back to what I said. You're looking after 3,000 VIPs in about 320 locations, not just this little precinct.

Á  (1130)  

    A/Commr Dawson Hovey: Yes, thank you.

    Mr. Chair, Mr. Johnston is correct. We did bring in an additional 15, followed by another 50 personnel, and that was done to deal with our overall protective policing pressures within the national capital region.

    Prior to September 11, there had been a decision on an agreement that was reached by the senior officials on Parliament Hill, represented by Mr. Cloutier. There would be an additional 12 resources brought into the RCMP to deal with policing specifically for Parliament Hill. We have not received official approval and official funding for them from Treasury Board; however, there was a consensus and agreement that we required, pre-September 11, an additional 12 dedicated resources for Parliament Hill.

    I'm not happy with the current establishment that we have to protect the Parliament Hill area, so we are doing an A-base review. We expect to have this done by the end of May, and that A-base review will give us a better idea of what the appropriate complement of resources is for the Hill.

    Mr. Chair, I'm not trying to duck the question, but if I can go back to your earlier question, we are doing business quite differently around this area, post-September 11, than we were before. We had already started to work to invest more resources in gathering intelligence so that we would know what would happen before it did. Post-September 11, we've had additional support from the government in terms of our INSET teams—the Integrated National Security Enforcement Teams—not only to gather greater intelligence, but also to work in a more integrated and coordinated fashion with our local police partners, as well as with our international partners.

    So a number of things are happening that give me a greater comfort level in regard to the way we're working to have better information, as well as in terms of working in a more integrated fashion. That includes our colleagues in the House of Commons, as well as the Senate,

[Translation]

and members of the Ottawa, Gatineau and Quebec Provincial Police Forces.

[English]

in the national capital region, and that's working very well.

    I hope that by the end of May, we will have the results of the A-base review in order to give a more thoughtful response to what the required resource level is for the Parliament Hill area.

    The Chair: Briefly, Dale, please.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    From my calculations, 12 and 15 equal 27. My understanding is that, at one point not too terribly long ago, you had something like 42 or 47 members on the Hill. If my math is right, and if you're talking about 27—and I realize we'll know better, that we'll have a more solid number on June 1—27 is still a long way from 42.

    MGen. Gus Cloutier: Mr. Chairman, on the figure of 42, it has been quite a transition since 1985. Mr. Johnston is quite correct with his numbers. The RCMP detachment numbered 42 at one stage. Through financial reductions and so on, the number gradually came down. We went through the stage in which we had RCMP special constables policing the Hill, but that didn't work out very well. The commissioner of the day therefore decided that we should go back to regular constables on the Hill. The numbers kept going down, to the point I think you mentioned--it was 15 at last count, if I recall--with the provision being that the policing would be part of the embassy circuit. The cars are on standby and are policing through Parliament Hill, rather than being attached to Parliament.

    Now, as you all know, we have expanded westward through the acquisition of Justice Building. There's no doubt that this will put extra duties or demands on the services of the RCMP, particularly in the evening in terms of covering our parking lot when the House is sitting late.

    My assessment is that there is no doubt we should have a permanent RCMP detachment on the Hill. We should not be part of a parade or embassy circuit. I think Parliament is important enough. This is a symbol of the nation. There's only one, and the federal police should certainly be here to look after our security. I feel very strongly that the external policing here is extremely important, being the first line of defence for us. We're ready inside, but outside, externally, this is very important. We've seen things like jeeps, we've seen things like buses, and we have to be ready to stop them on the outside.

    So I'm hoping that, through the A-base study the RCMP are doing now, we'll come up with some evaluation that will bring us the level of security outside that we require to protect this Parliament effectively.

Á  (1135)  

    The Chair: Does “A-base” mean it's a review of the bottom of the pyramid of the force?

    A/Commr Dawson Hovey: Yes.

    The Chair: Okay, thank you.

    Michel Guimond.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Isn't this also called A Division?

    A/Commr Dawson Hovey: It is, yes. That's a coincidence, though.

    The Chair: Okay, thank you.

    Michel Guimond, Marlene Catterall, Rick Borotsik, and Joe Jordan, and then the chair.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Hovey, I would like to know whether the 50 additional officers from across Canada which you inherited, many of whom are unilingual, are spread around or are still assigned to the "carwash".

    A/Commr Dawson Hovey: No. The 50 members are back within their division. The three members from Saskatchewan who were on unpaid leave are temporarily in our division. I believe that the three who remain are completely bilingual.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Of course, there may be isolated events, but I have to tell you that I noticed an improvement with respect to the services that I receive in my mother tongue. So in terms of bilingualism, personally, I have seen an improvement since the last visit. I wanted to mention that.

    That said, would it not be a good idea to give the officers assigned to the RCMP “car wash” a bit of training on how to identify members of Parliament? I will give you an example. I came from the airport and I had a small bag that was inside my large suitcase, which was in the trunk of the taxi. My MP identity card was in the small bag. However, I did have my driver's licence with a photo because I had to present a piece of identification when I got on the plane. Instead of getting out of the taxi to get my card, I showed the officer my MP's badge. That means absolutely nothing to some of your officers. Our security officers on the Hill recognize the badge. Would it be possible to give some training to your officers and tell them that that badge is equivalent to the member's identity card with a picture. It is, of course, possible that someone could steal it from me, but it is securely attached and has a number. If it is stolen from me, I would let Major General Cloutier know. It allows me to get on to the Hill. Maybe they need some instructions about that.

    There are also parking passes for lot 355. It is true it is not a sticker and can be removed from one vehicle and used in another, but when I show my pass for lot 355, which is reserved for MPs, I have the impression that it means absolutely nothing to your officers. Maybe they do not think that MPs park their cars. The pass means nothing to them, nor does the badge. Maybe they need to understand the various ways of identifying members of Parliament. That is a comment.

    I left the Hill one night last week at about 20 minutes past midnight. There was an RCMP vehicle blocking the entrance and exit. Maybe there needs to be a sign at night. The vehicle was empty. I thought that the officer was lying down on the seat, so I pulled up and waited, and then decided to go and see. There was no one in the vehicle. I did not know that at night you need to go out through the “car wash.” Some way may need to be found to improve traffic circulation there. Are there officers there 24 hours a day? I pulled up and waited to identify myself before leaving. It was past midnight and no one came. I believe that it was Tuesday or Wednesday of last week.

    I am almost done, Mr. Chairman. You are going to tell me that I am being brief today.

    Finally, I want to congratulate Major General Cloutier for easing the requirement that the drivers of the green buses keep their radio turned off. That is good news. They received permission to turn their radio on, but not too loud. That is all.

Á  (1140)  

    MGen. Gus Cloutier: With respect to the first point that you raised, as I said earlier, it would be good to have a permanent detachment of the RCMP on Parliament Hill, because the constables could then become familiar with Hill culture. It is very important that they know who you are and how you work. People on the Hill do not work normal hours. There are votes. There are pressure points at certain periods during the day. So it would be very important to have a permanent detachment and to give the RCMP the funding it needs to do its work.

    A/Commr Dawson Hovey: Mr. Chairman, thank you for your support. First of all, you mentioned bilingualism. I can assure you that all our members assigned to Parliament Hill are bilingual. It is absolutely necessary. However, from time to time we need someone on a temporary basis. It is not always possible to get someone who is bilingual, but that is our objective. Our members who are assigned to the Parliament Hill detachment are all bilingual. There is no doubt that when the members of the detachment do not change, they are able to become more familiar with those working on Parliament Hill.

    You mentioned training. If you have another idea for identifying members of Parliament, perhaps using pictures, please let us know. The House of Commons security staff can help our members during the peak traffic times. At those times,

[English]

the times when we are particularly busy and people are coming on the Hill, we're looking for solutions, for ways in which we can positively approach the problem. If we could have people from the Senate or the House of Commons--and I know they often do this on Metcalfe Street, but possibly not quite as often at the Bank Street entrance--they would be able to assist our members who are not stationed here on a regular basis. As has already been pointed out, we don't have enough resources with the Parliament Hill detachment to meet the security needs that we're providing at the current time.

[Translation]

    Do you have another question?

    Mr. Michel Guimond: I asked a question about parking at night. Perhaps Mr. Cloutier could—

    A/Commr Dawson Hovey: Yes, of course. I will mention that to the supervisor, because at night there are always MPs on Parliament Hill. It is better to have a vehicle blocking the street so as to have a little—

Á  (1145)  

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Maybe there should be an arrow to indicate that you have to go backwards through the “car wash”.

    A/Commr Dawson Hovey: Yes.

[English]

    The Chair: Marlene Catterall, followed by Rick Borotsik.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West--Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Chair, you may recall that at our first meeting on this issue, I proposed that members of the committee might want to take an even longer trip than the one last week. They might actually want to go out to A Division Headquarters to get a demonstration of how the RCMP is providing VIP protection. A discussion could perhaps be had on the security services they provide to the members of Parliament, and on anything else members are interested in. If nothing else, the technology is fantastically worth seeing. We would be very envious. It's something we might want to schedule for another meeting, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Gentlemen, are the green buses allowed to go to RCMP headquarters, or would we have to find alternative transportation?

    MGen. Gus Cloutier: The House will find out.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    MGen. Gus Cloutier: What that means is that I'll pay for it.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: That has been duly noted.

    Thank you very much, Marlene. Please continue.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: Before the meeting started, I had a brief discussion with the assistant commissioner about ways in which we might facilitate taxis coming onto Parliament Hill for the convenience of members of Parliament, in a manner that would not jeopardize security. He had some useful suggestions that he might want to repeat here.

    I offered to get in contact with the owners of the cab companies to see how they might cooperate, but it would basically involve pre-screening drivers. The assistant commissioner was telling me that since members of Parliament often use the same driver time after time, there would be no problem to pre-screen that number of drivers. Perhaps through some discussions with the cab companies, I might be able to come back with some more concrete suggestions as to how they might meet our security needs while still allowing members of Parliament another level of convenience.

    The Chair: Commissioner, are there any comments? I'd really be interested if Marlene could get some more information, and I'm sure colleagues would be as well. But we do understand that it's not simply inconvenience, it's a cost to cab drivers, so anything we can do while maintaining good security would be fine.

    A/Commr Dawson Hovey: Mr. Chair, I offered that solution to Ms. Catterall. We could pre-clear taxicabs in order to facilitate their access to the Hill. Our objective here is to provide security, not to be obstructive or to impede. Wherever possible, we will adjust our procedures to facilitate access as long as it doesn't compromise security. If pre-clearing certain cabs would meet your members' needs, then we're prepared to do that.

    The other issue that was raised, Mr. Chair, was the possibility of a tour of what we call DEOC, our Divisional Emergency Operations Centre. That was most helpful to me as well. I learned a lot from that tour, because we take it for granted that members of Parliament are aware of a number of things. You're not, though, because you're very busy people. We assume that when things are happening, you're made aware of certain things, but this isn't always the case. It was therefore a very good two-way explanation.

    What we did was show our DEOC off Montreal Road. That's where we monitor emergency situations—for instance, September 11 and post-September 11. Shortly after the incident, we activated the DEOC. We can show you what we do to protect all the VIPs and locations—such as Parliament Hill—in the national capital region.

    I believe a tour would be of some value to you, and it would certainly help us to understand better what your needs are. If you would like to do that, we'll make ourselves available. If you would like to do it over two days to make it more convenient for your deputies, then we would certainly do that as well.

    The Chair: [Editor's Note: Inaudible] ...briefly, all the whips on this committee, as well as a number of party officers, so it makes things particularly complicated. Things tend to have to be short and fairly sweet, but we have the transportation organized, and it was just suggested to me that the RCMP could perhaps provide lunch.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    A/Commr Dawson Hovey: We have doughnuts, of course.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: We thank you for the offer.

    Marlene, are you okay with that? Yes! We will follow up on that.

    Rick Borotsik, Joe Jordan, and Tony Tirabassi, and then the chair.

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank the RCMP for their gracious lunch contribution to the House.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have a couple of points. First of all, in terms of security of any sort, I thank you very much for putting it in place as best as you can. Security can be breached by anybody who wants to breach security. Regardless of the level you put in place, there are always bad people out there who can breach it.

    One point that I have is that staff and members have a tendency of knowing who some of the wing nuts and the nutbars out there are—and we know there are a few of them. Has there ever been a process, either through House security or through the RCMP, for some sort of—I'll use this term—neighbourhood watch? Is there any way my staff and other staff members who may have seen something or perceived something out there...a process by which they can talk to someone, and a process that tells them what they should put forward? Almost all of what they see, like 99.999% perhaps, is going to be insignificant, but maybe that 0.001% is really going to be of some interest. Have you ever thought of any kind of a program like that?

    A/Commr Dawson Hovey: Mr. Chair, that's an excellent suggestion, and I'll just go back to confirm that I would be pleased to offer lunch to anybody who would be able to come out to visit us.

    Phone numbers are already given to your staff and to MPs should they have a problem. When Ms. Catterall was visiting our DEOC, we found out that she was aware of a case in which a number—and I'm not sure what part of the country it was in—was no longer active. What we therefore need to do is be aware of what your needs are.

    When you talk about a briefing on people of interest to us, we have classifications for them. We brief our people twice a day on people of interest locally who are particularly active at an embassy or, as is quite often the case, on Parliament Hill. If there were a way in which we could facilitate it, I would like to do it with the House of Commons and the Senate in order to ensure that there is consistency and that the appropriate amount of information is given. But that's an excellent idea

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: It's just a matter of working together. The more eyes, the better, I suspect.

    A/Commr Dawson Hovey: You're right.

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: We have an ongoing security awareness program with all your staff. Often, we may not bother you people directly because we realize how busy you are, but we do gather a lot of information from the inside. The other thing, too, is that when we do have complaints from staff about individuals of concern, we do thorough internal investigations. We work very closely with Dawson Hovey's people, and these investigations will carry on to wherever they need to go. Also, we have a list of individuals who are troublesome or of concern. All our internal staff are briefed and advised. When we are able to get photographs from wherever, again, there's exactly that sort of thing.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'm going to jump in here, because he's going to cut me off really soon. I have two questions, and they deal more with internal security.

    After September 11, there were some concerns expressed by our own security personnel, our special constables, with respect to the equipment they currently have. I have some experience from a municipal police service, and we were well equipped. I'm referring to armaments now. Instead of the snub-nosed .38s, we're looking at perhaps a 9-millimetre of some sort. Have they been considered internally for our own security personnel, along with perhaps some Kevlar vests of some nature? I ask because our guys, and particularly our special constables, if there is in fact an incident--and heaven forbid, because we hope there never is.... You still have to prepare for the possibility of an incident, so are you looking at better equipment for our special constables?

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: Yes, sir, we are. Right now, we're in the process of equipping all our armed personnel with the appropriate vests. We're dealing through the RCMP and with a variety of companies on the outside, and as we identify people in these functions, they're properly measured and fitted, and they are presently being supplied with that type of equipment. And we are also looking at that possibility right now in terms of looking at what's involved in switching over to a different firearm.

Á  (1155)  

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Lastly, we talked about the west entrance to Centre Block for individuals who have lobby passes. There are lots of reasons, Major-General, for why we can probably come up with excuses not to allow it to happen. My comment, though, would be that, as whips, we do issue lobby passes to specific personnel. We do not do it just helter-skelter, we do it for individual staff members for our own caucuses. There are limited amounts. Not everybody who works on the Hill has a lobby pass, as you're well aware. But even if they go through the security process in the centre hallway and come back through the other way, there are still ways of getting around it. You know that.

    My preference would be that we come up with some understanding that lobby pass holders would be able to use the west entrance. All whips have agreed that it's a solution we'd like to see happen, but you have said you'd have to have some guarantees from us. Could you just expand on that a little bit? As I said, there are always ways around security, but I think we would like to see this happen.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: Might I suggest that the whips get together and make a proposal? We can hear his views, but then we could get together and come up with a proposal on how passes are issued, controlled, etc.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Exactly. The general can tell us what he needs, and then we'll try to come up with it, that's all.

    MGen. Gus Cloutier: I was really referring to the number of passes that you issue. How do you retrieve them? A lot of people have had passes, but they've then left the service of the House or they've left the area where they normally work, i.e., the lobby. But what happened to their passes? They can be used. They're issued for the life of a parliament--and I think I'm correct on that; I'd like to know if this is the case.

    In relaxing the rules at the west door, there's one thing overriding all this. The threat assessment has not come down since September and October. That's the number one consideration.

    Secondly, if there is such a small number, what precludes them from using the front door? The lobby pass is just another pass. All these people have a House of Commons pass that they can use to enter any building anywhere, and they can go through the front door. At the moment, there has been no exception made to that rule. From the senior deputy ministers coming to see their ministers, to members of the PCO, they all come in through the front door. They no longer use the west door. If we start making exceptions, how far do we go?

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Then we have to handle the risk.

    MGen. Gus Cloutier: I'm having a problem with the logic here. With the threat assessment that's still there, if I start making an exception for one group, another group will come up and say I've done it for the first, that they're equally important, that they have an equally important job, that they report to the minister of such-and-such a department--

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Perhaps that's legitimate. Maybe we should look at some level that could be allowed into the west entrance.

    And in addressing that, Monsieur Guimond just talked about members' buttons. If you're a former member, you can get into the west entrance. You can't buy them off the shelf, but I'm sure there are a lot of members' buttons floating around out there that perhaps aren't attached to members.

    MGen. Gus Cloutier: No, I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman, I disagree with that. Each button has a number on it.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Sure they do.

    MGen. Gus Cloutier: Those buttons are issued from my office. We don't float them like something in a popcorn box.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: No, and I appreciate that, Major-General. But that's not what I meant. I do know of members' spouses who have had access to the House with a member's button. I've seen it with my own eyes. All I'm saying is that we can always try to do the best we can to stop everything, but not everything can be stopped.

    MGen. Gus Cloutier: Again, Mr. Chairman, we have spouses' buttons.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: No, this was a member's button worn by a spouse.

    An hon. member: Report it.

    MGen. Gus Cloutier: Yes, you should report it, because she's entitled to her own button.

    The Chair: By the way, Rick, that's enough information for the whips to think about. I'm writing this... [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

    To go back, though, I think the responsibility rests on members of Parliament in particular, as well as on all the key people who work in this building, to behave appropriately. For example, Michel mentioned that we now show photo ID to go on airplanes. Times have changed. As this regime settles down, we will have new things that we'll have to do. We may arrive with a group of people and have to go through the visitors' entrance. But I don't want to get into it.

    I'm going to Joe Jordan and Tony Tirabassi, and then the chair. We then have Marlene and Dale again.

  (1200)  

    Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds--Grenville, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Maybe I'll just make a comment. One of the things that strikes me is the saying in politics, “When people start laughing at you, you're in trouble.” What I want to talk about is this whole exercise. I think it has been extremely valuable because MPs have watched the evolution of... First of all the RCMP were out there, and then the weather turned and they built these temporary structures. I think people looked at the whole process as a bit of an amusing progression, as Checkpoint Charlie, as tent city, and as other things people were calling.

    But at the end of the day, the trip--and we even made merriment of it, but I think it was done appropriately--was very valuable. It was extremely valuable from an MP's perspective, because there were things going on there that we had no idea about. We're not security experts, but once we had things explained to us, they surprised us. Personally, I was very impressed with the process, with the systems that were in place, and with the thought that had been given to it.

    My point is that we need to continue that dialogue. It shouldn't be an ad hoc thing. I may now understand it, but I'm just one of a group of MPs. I don't know, but is there a way to communicate, to just... I know it comes through the whips, and a lot of the whips are asking questions they've probably picked up at various caucuses. But is there a way to make this information available to MPs in a way in which they can digest it?

    It has been extremely useful to have this briefing and this process. Certainly there was a very legitimate concern and grievance brought up about the language issue, and that was responded to appropriately. That issue was solved before it became a bigger deal. But I think we either need to schedule this on a more regular basis, with us taking the responsibility of reporting back to caucuses, or we need to perhaps have an opportunity for MPs who aren't on this committee to experience the same sorts of things.

    At the end of the day, as funny as that trip was, I found it to be extremely valuable. It was a good way to eliminate a lot of myths. You ride those buses and talk about a lot of things, but it's nice to have a few facts to talk about.

    I don't know whose idea it was. Maybe it was the chair's. Yes? This man never ceases to amaze me.

    Anyway, it was very useful, and I hope we can formalize these exchanges. If that level of security is here to stay, then we need to take it a little bit more seriously from our perspective.

    The Chair: If I could comment, one of the values of this committee, of course, is that the whips are here. Because of that, the information does flow more effectively than it might in some other cases.

    The other thing is that we could quite easily...for example, following the discussion by the whips or following this discussion, we could circulate a letter to all members as MPs. We could just write to them, rather than having it come from you, General. If that would to be useful, we could certainly do it.

    I think the members all agree, by the way, that we are all most grateful to you for the last time. It was good for us, but it does spread particularly quickly because the whips or similar people are here.

    Tony Tirabassi.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, too, would like to thank the gentlemen for coming back to talk about this very important issue.

    I have to concur with my colleague Joe on some of the points he raised about how useful we found the trip down to the Bank Street entrance to be. We have now been briefed, so we have no reason to not know what's going on. You extended that opportunity to us, so it's up to us to pick it up from there. That's what this whole exercise is about.

    Unless I've missed something, I noticed that most of what we've talked about has dealt with security as it relates to what we might be looking for in the conventional--in other words, physical searches of vehicles for small explosives, medium explosives, or weapons. Indeed that's what sparked all this on September 11.

    But if you remember, right on the heels of all that came the new threat of bioterrorism. Whether they were copycats or whether they were just spoofs, this was dealt with in a very real fashion in the American national capital. Of course, I'm speaking about such examples as anthrax or gaining access to heating or ventilation in a particular building. Like much of this other security that we've been talking about, you probably want to be very careful and can't be too specific, but I'm looking for some assurance that we are also looking at different ways of dealing with mail off the Hill, as it's sorted and brought on to the Hill.

    When it comes to issues of ventilation and water in our system here, it gets very uncomfortable. You may have to question people who you think may work here, but they have easy access to certain rooms that control the ventilation in this building. Again, I don't expect exact answers or specifics in response to my question because of the nature of this, but are you addressing those areas as well?

  (1205)  

    A/Commr Dawson Hovey: If I could, Mr. Chair, I'll start off and then turn it over.

    That's another excellent question. Going back to your first comment, personally, both I and the people I work with have learned a great deal from our interaction with the members of Parliament. It has been quite a learning experience for me in terms of understanding what your needs are, so I would certainly support any information-sharing that we could have, both to provide better service to you and to ensure that there's a better understanding of what some of the complications are and what we're dealing with. We get great support from committees such as this, and we'll commit to anything we can do to improve the dialogue and the flow of communication.

    Prior to September 11, we had a number of joint training exercises with the House of Commons and the Senate on exactly what you're talking about. We worked on changing our mail handling procedures in order to ensure that the risks would be dealt with prior to coming into the buildings.

    I'll let my good friend and colleague Mr. Thivierge respond to that in detail, but it gets back to what I had said earlier about security generally, about investing more time and energy up front to assess risk and develop better intelligence, and about working in a more integrated fashion. These things are seldom individual random acts—and that includes the hoaxes—so we have been working in a more integrated fashion as recently as this week in regard to similar types of cases in many jurisdictions, and not only in Ottawa.

    I'm not trying to be an alarmist, but you raise a very current issue that we've been dealing with for some time in an integrated fashion. We've been doing that much more effectively than we were prior to September 11.

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: As Dawson mentioned, we've been working very closely with the entire community, including the health community, even to the extent of working with the Canadian military people who are doing research and study in this area here. We've been doing major exercises off-site. As a matter of fact, where our principal mail-handling facility is off-site, we figure that if anything were going to happen, that's where the trail would begin.

    Observing events in the United States and looking at our health community and our military, they have also learned a lot from that experience, and a lot of the assumptions about how to deal with these things have changed. Of course, we've adjusted our way of operating in terms of what that learning experience has been. We've now handled somewhere in the area of ten incidents, and we've been able to flow through without creating any alarm. That's thanks to all that work that has been done by a number of people, including a lot of excellent work done by the RCMP.

    We're learning with every experience, and we're observing what's happening. As a matter of fact, the Sergeant-at-Arms allowed me to go down to the U.S. last fall, and I met with the experts in that field while I was there. As I say, it's a learning experience. Every one of these events that has occurred outside of our jurisdiction has provided a learning experience for us. We persist in doing this, we have done some joint exercises recently, and we will continue to do so.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Just briefly, then, we can conclude that although we can never 100% eliminate something from happening--there are no guarantees--we're now in much better shape against those unseen evils. They're more detectable now than they were pre-September 11.

  (1210)  

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: Absolutely. The other thing, too, is that we have been extensively involved in a security awareness or education program for all staff on the Hill. As we learn, we deal with your staff, pass on information pamphlets, and do actual visits to deal with these issues. Everybody is alerted in terms of the best procedures to follow should something go wrong.

    The Chair: Thanks, Tony.

    I just learned that the Clerk of the House can't come in through the west door. I didn't know that, but it gives you an idea of the strictness we're trying to apply.

    General, for my turn, I'd like to go back to this question of split jurisdiction if I could. First of all, I'm not a believer in some single-tier organization. Yesterday, we had an elaborate emergency preparedness day in my riding. My riding is the city of Peterborough and the surrounding county, which has its own council. There are eight or nine municipalities in that county. We have an emergency preparedness organization that deals with all of that. Although you have to constantly watch against waste and all that, I think the redundancy that it provides is very valuable.

    For example, it used to be that if there was an emergency, you might have a base in the city of Peterborough, and people from that base would be able to help the people in the county. But the reality is that there might be an emergency in a village like Norwood or Lakefield one day, or a township in the riding might be the source of it. So you need overlapping jurisdictions.

    By my count, we have nine or ten jurisdictions here. We have the RCMP, Gatineau, Ottawa, the Sûreté du Québec, the OPP, the Senate, and the House. I'm sure I may have missed one, but we have a lot. I also know we have ministers' offices on the other side of the river. We have members who live on the other side of the river, who have apartments on the other side of the river. And we regularly have meetings in the government buildings in other parts of the national capital region.

    I heard what you said about the RCMP and the units here on the Hill, and we're all most interested in that dimension of your relationships. But on this Senate–House of Commons thing, General, a lot of what we're discussing--whether you wear the badge or whether you have a pass--depends on people recognizing us. My experience truly is that our staff, both in this building and in the other buildings where there are a lot of members' offices--and by “our staff”, I mean the House of Commons staff--do recognize us regardless of what we're wearing. And they quite often recognize our spouses. My wife comes here perhaps once a month, but quite a few of the security people already know who she is. They simply know us.

    But my experience in the Senate is that this is not the case. They're very polite and very professional in the Senate, and I have no complaints. I don't mind that they don't recognize me. But if there are nine or ten jurisdictions and the security in our main buildings depends a lot on recognition, surely we could do something about unifying those two groups.

    I hate to say this in front of my colleagues, but if it's a question of who runs it or who doesn't run it, I would be quite glad to allow the Senate to run security in this building and on the Hill if we had to make a choice. I suspect we don't have to make that choice, General. I'm not looking for anything here, but I'd be grateful for your comments.

    An hon. member: We don't all necessarily agree with you.

    The Chair: By all means, if you want to go into the general question of these nine or ten jurisdictions...

    Much more particularly, this is where we might be able to do something, with some sort of better coordination and direction at the level of the Senate and the House.

    And we next go to Dale Johnston, by the way.

    MGen. Gus Cloutier: Mr. Chairman, this was addressed by the Auditor General at one stage, in 1982, I believe. He certainly felt at that time that one security force would be preferable to the arrangement that now exists.

    As a basic philosophy, I believe in the unity of command, particularly when operational forces are in place. Whether you command an air force, an army, or a police force, it's an operational force and somebody has to be in charge. Somebody has to be responsible and accountable, so that basic principle of unity of command is very important operationally.

    Here on Parliament Hill, you have one Parliament with two distinct Houses. Think for one second of the British system of Parliament. Britain has one security force for the House of Lords and the House of Commons. It's headed by a director of security who reports to both the Sergeant-at-Arms and to the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as well as to a joint committee of both Houses that normally meets twice a year. In other words, you have a commander for that force. Under that commander are two deputies: one who looks after the security of the House of Lords and the other who looks after the House of Commons. That's the way it goes. Every morning, the director of security will normally drop in to see the Sergeant-at-Arms and will probably drop in to see the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. He'll discuss the issues of the day with them or see if they have anything to report. From an estimates point of view or a budget point of view, the director of security reports to the Sergeant-at-Arms, who in turn reports to the Speaker, and the House will vote the funding necessary to meet the budget requirements. So that's one model.

    You could have other models. For example, we could turn things over to the RCMP and say they're going to run the security of this place under contract. You could give them a contract and make them responsible to the Hill. Now, it's up to you parliamentarians to decide to whom they're going to report, but that could be another approach. Again, though, there would be one person in charge of security for the whole of Parliament Hill.

    The idea has a lot of merit, but I think there are roadblocks along the way. In the last 25 years that I've been here, both the independence of the two Houses and the constitutional issues have certainly been raised by our friends next door. Until parliamentarians can get together to decide that both Houses acknowledge what's best for them and that we can begin the process of looking at ways and means to achieve the objective, the time won't be right to go ahead.

  (1215)  

    The Chair: You mentioned 1982, but things have changed. I think we all agree that security is now going to be different here forever. It does seem to me that almost everything we discuss depends on recognition of us. For example, if your staff could recognize another hundred people, meaning the senators, or if the Senate staff could recognize another 300 people, the problem would be solved.

    There's your point, which is the unity of command. I know that, after September 11, you all moved very quickly. These groups were well coordinated, and I have no objection to that. It just seems to me that the key point is that, under that commander, for the system we are developing here, each of the security people in the key buildings should recognize all the participants--and there are 406, or 301 members as compared to 105 senators.

    Do you understand my point? Everything we're saying here--I don't have my identity card, or I've forgotten my button--depends on recognition of us. If they can recognize us--all the MPs and the Senate side--it's simple. If they can't, it's a weakness in the system. That's my only point.

    Have you any thoughts on how we might proceed if there's interest on all sides?

    MGen. Gus Cloutier: It basically comes down to training. We have a very intense training system for recognition. Besides the training... think of the pages. How do the pages know all of you? If I mention your name, they go right to your desk. Well, we train them at the beginning, in August, before we start in September, and we do that very intensely.

    We do that with security all the time, because members change, members leave, we have new parliaments, and so on. They have books that they carry in their pocket, and those books contain all of your pictures, your photographs. We've given some of those to the RCMP at the gates.

    What I would say is that our training standards are different from the ones next door. Can it be accomplished? Absolutely. It's just a matter of getting the two forces together. And they do get together. They've been training on various exercises. The director of security services mentioned a few of them. So, administratively, there's no reason they couldn't do that.

  (1220)  

    The Chair: Sir, I must move on, because we have other questions. I just say to you, though, that the training is excellent. I have no complaints myself. But the difference for the pages or your security people here is that once they've been trained, they do see us on a regular basis. In other words, things are reinforced.

    It isn't easy. We all know you can't remember everything. But for what I described, the idea would be that the security people would rotate into the Senate and they would rotate into the House, in order that things are refreshed in their minds on a daily basis. I think it's the only way. You could train each of us this week and we could recognize somebody, but if we didn't see a hundred of those people for the next year, we would forget them again. That's why I think unification or something like it should be a target. But you and I could perhaps discuss it again.

    Dale, Marlene, and John Richardson.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Actually, Peter, we've heard from Major-General Cloutier on the question I was going to ask about the efficiencies and so forth to be obtained by integrating the two security forces in the House and the Senate. I would therefore like to hear from the RCMP on how they see the integration of the two as improving both the security and the efficiency of the security.

    A/Commr Dawson Hovey: Mr. Chair, we have a very close working relationship with both the House of Commons and the Senate. The way I look at, the role of the police is to be told what to do, not to determine how to structure ourselves. These are issues that are better left with parliamentarians. But I can assure you that we have no communication issues with either the House of Commons or the Senate. We speak at different levels on a daily basis, and we will perform whatever role you feel is appropriate for us to perform.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: I just have one other very brief observation. It's a “How come?” question, Mr. Chairman.

    How come security photos are always grainy like this, but photo radar can get my licence plate at 300 yards?

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: I suppose it has to do with the camera.

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: But that can be transmitted by computer too. If it's scanned in by one computer and is pushed out by another, you always lose a little quality.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Do you need some better security cameras?

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: If you're talking about quality, we're purchasing right on the cutting edge right now.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Perfect.

    The Chair: Marlene.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: I don't have anything other than a lunch appointment in five minutes.

    The Chair: John Richardson.

    Mr. John Richardson (Perth--Middlesex, Lib.): I'd just like to highlight the point that was just brought up by Dale. One of the most important parts of surveillance is camera work: identifying a person from maybe 25 yards away, picking them up. That's when you want to gather things. Good cameras are just like a gun. They catch the culprits. I've just seen it in the House. General Cloutier and I both spent a lot of time in the armed services. We've always had our own ways of doing things, but the techniques around now are so good that, if it helps us to achieve what we have as our goal, we should keep security on the Hill.

    The Chair: Thanks, John.

    Colleagues, if I could, I'd like to thank our witnesses.

    General Cloutier, Mr. Thivierge, Assistant Commissioner Hovey, we appreciate having you here, and we appreciate the presence of your colleagues Line Carbonneau and Roger Brown. This is a topic of interest, and I'm sure we'll revisit it. As you've heard, we appreciate what you've done.

    I must say that if I have anything to do with it, you may hear from us again on this question of the Senate and the House, because I think it is something we should look at seriously. If we don't look at it at times like these, it will just disappear again, as it did in 1982.

    Colleagues, the meeting is adjourned until eleven o'clock Tuesday, when we do the main estimates of the House. Our main witness then will be the Speaker, Peter Milliken.