HAFF Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, April 11, 2002

Á

1105

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

Mr. Johnston

The Chair

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

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Á

1110

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

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

The Chair

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

Á

1115

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Chair

Mr. Johnston

MGen G. Cloutier

Á

1120

Mr. Dale Johnston

MGen G. Cloutier

The Chair

MGen G. Cloutier

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

MGen G. Cloutier

Mr. Johnston

MGen G. Cloutier

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Chair

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

Á

1125

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Guimond

The Chair

MGen. G. Cloutier

Á

1130

Mr. Michel Thivierge

MGen G. Cloutier

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Michel Thivierge

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Á

1135

Mr. Michel Thivierge

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Michel Thivierge

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Michel Thivierge

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Michel Thivierge

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Michel Thivierge

Mr. Thivierge

Mr. Thivierge

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Michel Thivierge

MGen G. Cloutier

Mr. Michel Thivierge

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Thivierge

Ms. Catterall

Mr. Michel Thivierge

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Á

1140

MGen G. Cloutier

Á

1145

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)

MGen G. Cloutier

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

MGen G. Cloutier

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

MGen G. Cloutier

Mr. Dale Johnston

MGen G. Cloutier

Mr. Dale Johnston

MGen G. Cloutier

Á

1150

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. Michel Thivierge

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. Michel Thivierge

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. Michel Thivierge

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. Michel Thivierge

Mr. Johnston

The Chair

Á

1155

MGen. G. Cloutier

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard--La Prairie, Lib.)

Mr. Michel Thivierge

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Michel Thivierge

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Michel Thivierge

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Â

1200

MGen G. Cloutier

Â

1205

The Chair

Mr. Guimond

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Michel Thivierge

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Michel Thivierge

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Michel Thivierge

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Michel Thivierge

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Michel Thivierge

MGen G. Cloutier

Mr. Michel Thivierge

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Â

1210

Mr. Michel Thivierge

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Michel Thivierge

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Michel Thivierge

Mr. Yvon Godin

MGen G. Cloutier

Mr. Yvon Godin

MGen G. Cloutier

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Â

1215

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

MGen G. Cloutier

The Chair

MGen G. Cloutier

Â

1220

The Chair

MGen G. Cloutier

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. Michel Thivierge

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. Michel Thivierge

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Chair

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

The Chair

MGen G. Cloutier

The Chair

Mr. Michel Thivierge

The Chair

Â

1225

Mr. Yvon Godin

MGen G. Cloutier

Mr. Yvon Godin

MGen G. Cloutier

Mr. Yvon Godin

MGen G. Cloutier

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

---

NUMBER 057

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, April 11, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, I call the meeting to order. The order of the day is, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), consideration of security on the Hill. I'll come to that, and our witnesses, in a moment.

    I want to welcome Dale Johnston here, who I understand is going to be a new full-time member of our committee now. Congratulations. It's good to see you.

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

    The Chair: Colleagues, I'll just explain where I think we are. First of all, we're dealing with security on the Hill today and on Tuesday because, in my view, that was the item of business that was sort of overtaken by the public hearings we conducted.

    It's my suggestion that the steering committee meet a week today. In other words, today and Tuesday are taken up with this matter, and the steering committee will meet a week today to consider future business. We will circulate to members of the steering committee a summary of the items that are outstanding. The long-time members of the committee have a good idea of what those are, but it's simply a matter of planning what we're going to be doing next.

    With regard to security on the Hill, again, because of the break, I should explain this. Our witnesses today are General Cloutier, who's the Sergeant-at-Arms, and Michel Thivierge, who is director of security services for the House of Commons. General, we welcome you very much. Michel, we welcome you again. I know you've been before our committee before.

    Our thought was that today we would have a briefing on what has happened, particularly since September. This is part of our jurisdiction. That is what we had planned earlier on, a general sort of overview. Then, on Tuesday, the proposal is that we have an expedition. For the first time in many years, this committee will be travelling. We will be going to visit the Bank Street entrance to Parliament Hill. We're going to be travelling in a convoy of little green buses.

    Marlene Catterall.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West--Nepean, Lib.): You mean we are not taking the carriage with the Canadian horse?

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: We can discuss that when General Cloutier and his colleague have finished. At the moment--

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: I have another point of order.

    The Chair: Can I finish first?

    I suggest that for this dangerous expedition--we normally are in this very safe cave here--you bring some shoes and your parkas and a compass, so you can find your way back.

    I'll explain Tuesday in more detail. As we are aware, today the security point on Bank Street is the responsibility of the RCMP. The suggestion is that next Tuesday we meet here perhaps for 20 or 30 minutes. The RCMP will brief us on what they are doing there and on the Hill, and then we'll proceed to the buses, which General Cloutier will arrange at the door, and travel in convoy down to that point.

    Those are our plans for today and Tuesday. Next Thursday is the steering committee meeting. Is that okay?

    General Cloutier, we welcome you here.

    On a point of order, Marlene Catterall.

Á  (1110)  

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: I just thought it was important to welcome my new dancing partner to this committee. I'm not sure why men keep leaving me in that role. Since I've been married to the same man for 40 years, I don't think it's me. I just wanted to say I'm very pleased to have somebody new to work with, and I'm very pleased to have a new member of this committee.

    The Chair: Thanks for that.

    Yvon Godin.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie--Bathurst, NDP): When we take our big trip on the green buses, will we be entitled to have the radio on, Mr. Chairman?

    Voices: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: We will see.

[English]

    General Cloutier, please.

    Major-General G. Cloutier (Sergeant-at-Arms, House of Commons): Mr. Chairman, on this point, do you need lunch?

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: General, do you have any C rations or something like that?

    MGen G. Cloutier: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank you and all the members of the committee this morning for inviting us to give you an update on security.

    It has been seven months to the day since September 11, 2001, since the terrorist attacks on the United States and subsequent world events, including military action in Afghanistan. These events have caused all of us, certainly all of us who work on or visit Parliament Hill, not only to alter our daily lives but to reflect on how we will be affected and how we should prepare for the longer term.

[Translation]

    As regards security, I am sure that you know that the most obvious impact has been much tighter control on access here and elsewhere. Before discussing certain specific improvements to safety, I would like to describe briefly the way security works on Parliament Hill.

[English]

    Security on Parliament Hill involves many stakeholders. Principal amongst them are the House of Commons, the Senate, and the RCMP. The House and Senate have a responsibility within their respective jurisdictions for security inside--and I say it again--inside the Parliament Buildings. The RCMP has responsibility for the outside surrounding the Parliament Buildings and Parliament Hill, including controlling access to the grounds.

    Considerable effort is spent on cooperation, communication, and coordination among these three organizations to provide the type of service that, while not seamless, can be effective in balancing access and security interests, especially in preparing for and responding to emergencies.

    An array of other federal organizations have an interest in security on the Hill. Most are represented on the Committee of Senior Officials and a working group for security on Parliament Hill, both chaired by the Privy Council Office. The Clerk of the House is on the committee, and the director of security, Mr. Thivierge, who is with us today, is a member of the working group. The membership of the committee also includes the Senate, the RCMP--that's at the level of the clerk; therefore, I'm talking about deputy chief of operations of the RCMP, from the NCC Marcel Beaudry, PWGSC, CSIS, Treasury Board, and Supreme Court and Federal Court representatives.

    Effective working relationships with other actors are important in preparing for and responding to special events and, above all, in sharing information. Locally, these people are obviously the local police, the fire department, and the regional health authorities. Liaison extends to police and security organizations in other legislatures and locations across Canada in supporting requirements for your riding offices, travelling committees, or to other countries to share information and prepare for events that impact Parliament Hill.

    As was stated, since September 11 the most obvious impacts of security enhancements on Parliament Hill have been in the area of access control. The RCMP has closed the Hill to unauthorized vehicular traffic, and authorized vehicles are subject to verification and inspection at specified points of entry. The emergency procedures have been reviewed and we've carried out many simulation exercises with the Senate.

    Regular meetings of the Committee of Senior Officials, which I mentioned earlier, meetings of the working group, and teleconferences amongst the PCO, RCMP, Senate, and the House have taken place to discuss issues around Hill security. Those teleconferences were taking place on a daily basis up to about a month ago, and now I think they are held twice a week.

    House security has expanded the use of electronic scanning for visitors at entry points to all precinct buildings where members are located or conduct House business. The west door to the Centre Block has been returned to use as an access point designated specifically for members of Parliament and accompanying staff. Access to the West Block, west side, which we call the freight entrance, has been improved to meet the combined objectives of enhancing security and ensuring timely building access for committee business.

Á  (1115)  

    Ongoing materiel handling measures involving business units across the House have been augmented to ensure that anything, in addition to anyone, entering precinct buildings is subject to inspection, identification, and special handling if suspicious. Security awareness and communication activity with members, employees, and administration staff with regard to displaying ID and permits at all times, identifying suspicious packages or activities, and knowing how to respond and obtain help when necessary has been stepped up

    The support and cooperation that our security service has received from members, staff, and members of the press gallery in enhancing security at the House of Commons has been outstanding.

[Translation]

    Even though seven months have gone by since the attacks on September 11, we must remain vigilant at all times and maintain our ability to intervene in case of emergencies.

[English]

    I'd like to repeat it in English. Although seven months have gone by, we still need to be very vigilant at all times, particularly at this time when the assessments are still at the same level as they were six months ago.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Merci.

    Would you like to add something, Michel?

    Mr. Michel Thivierge (Director, House of Commons Security Services): I have nothing to add at this time. I think the points we wanted to make have been covered.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    We will go first to Michel Guimond, then to Marlene Catterall and Yvon Godin.

[English]

    Did you want to go first, Dale?

    Mr. Dale Johnston: I have some questions.

    The Chair: Dale, I'm sorry, I didn't see you. We'll start with Dale. Then I'll go to Michel, Marlene, and Yvon.

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

    I noticed that on page 10 of this report on priorities there's a plan for a new committee building and so forth on the corner of Bank and Wellington. believe that at present that area is a parking lot and a security checkpoint.

    MGen G. Cloutier: That's correct.

Á  (1120)  

    Mr. Dale Johnston: In the face of this new development, can you tell me the cost of building the checkpoint? I'd like to know the cost of the renovations and who authorized that cost.

    MGen G. Cloutier: The cost for the checkpoint, as you call it, has been defrayed by Public Works. We have assisted the RCMP by providing the necessary telephone, computer, and fax lines. As far as the cost of building that structure is concerned, I'm afraid I do not have that information. It's not within my budget. Everything was done by Public Works.

    The Chair: As some of our members are interested in that, should we ask the RCMP to have that when they come?

    MGen G. Cloutier: Yes, absolutely.

    The Chair: We will do that.

    Please continue.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: I have a supplementary question. At some point we're going to have to tear down that checkpoint and relocate it. Where are we going to relocate it?

    MGen G. Cloutier: That's a very good question, Mr. Chairman. This morning at 9:30 the Minister of Public Works announced the new committee building, which will be started in 2004 and completed by 2008.

    We are now planning to look at the circulation pattern on the Hill. Obviously we will not be able to use that area, and it will be cordoned off. So we're looking at various ways of entering the precinct, probably farther west. Because of our new building going up, the pattern will change. There is a road planned for the north side of that parking lot. Let's say that where that RCMP checkpoint is located, there will be a road that will go right to this building and behind the West Block as a link. I would expect that in the next year or so we'll spend a fair amount of time looking at it from a security point of view as well as from a parking and traffic point of view to see what's the best option for us to follow to circumvent that construction when it starts.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: So the new road will go between the parking lot and the river and up to the Hill. Is that correct?

    MGen G. Cloutier: No. I suspect it will probably come out at the Kent Street extension by the Supreme Court. Then it would go through the back to the escarpment. That would be one possibility. But we're certainly going to have to have a major study done before they start doing work on that. That will affect our security as well.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: I have some other questions as well.

    The Chair: As you wish. We can come back to you, Dale, if you want. Is that okay?

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Sure, that' s fine.

    The Chair: It's Michel Guimond, Marlene Catterall, Yvon Godin, and Carolyn Parrish.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport--Montmorency--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here, Major General Cloutier and Mr. Thivierge.

    I would like to start by making a preliminary comment. I cannot speak on behalf of the committee, but on my own behalf and on behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, I would like to congratulate the security officers on the Hill. Congratulations are rather rare these days. We are more inclined to criticize than to pay compliments. I have an opportunity to congratulate these people, and I do so without hesitation.

    As I see the situation, I would say that 98 per cent of our security officers, with the exception of two or three individuals—that explains the 98 per cent figure—are helpful, discreet, polite and apolitical. I have only been here since 1993—some colleagues have been here much longer—but I can tell you that no security officer has ever made any partisan or political comment to me. In my view they are apolitical—and that is part of their skills. As individuals, they never talk about their personal frustrations or their frustrations regarding work or their immediate superior. We know what it is like. I worked in human resources for 16 years before becoming a member of Parliament. I am sure that as the head of personnel, I was not unanimously popular among my staff. We know about the grapevine and informal discussions. I have never seen that among our security officers.

    That was the first comment I wanted to make. Do not brace yourself for criticism now that I have paid my compliments.

    When I say that there are two or three exceptions, I mean that there may be two or three of our security officers who are not functionally bilingual. That is unfortunate.

    We have seen some examples of this when they were working at the RCMP search location. I am using this to present a result. When your children were at school and they came home with 98 per cent on their report card, I think you must have been pleased. Look at the baseball players in the national league—none of them will have an average of 980 at the end of the season. Those with a batting average of 300 are considered very good.

    Unfortunately, it has happened that our security officers who were supposed to identify us... I do not know whether the RCMP staff lives on the same planet as the rest of the people in Ottawa. I do not want to get into RCMP bashing here, but this is the lead-up to my question.

Á  (1125)  

    The Chair: Are you coming to your question?

    Mr. Michel Guimond: So far, I am right on topic. We could talk about women and hockey, if you like, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: No, that is all right. But we will have to have a very short answer.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Unfortunately, the security officers who were suppose to identify us, because the RCMP staff did not know us, were unilingual anglophones. There are two or three such security officers. You know who they are, I do not need to name them.

    My question is to you, Major General Cloutier. I have already mentioned this matter to you in the House. Other colleagues have also told you that at the search location, they were unable to obtain service in French. Some times, there were four or five of them around the car, and none of them could reply when we asked them to wash the windshield, and check the oil and tire pressure. We were playing a joke on them. I said: “Michel Guimond, member of Parliament”, and they did not understand. Major General Cloutier, do you have the authority to ensure that we can obtain service in both languages from the RCMP staff working on the Hill?

    I am going to make an aside here. I do not know whether colleagues know and whether this is by chance, Mr. Chairman and Major General Cloutier, but as of this morning, the staff is no longer searching the trunks of members of Parliament and senators. This may be the first time you have heard this. Since this morning, that practice is no longer in effect. We need only say that we are a member of Parliament or a senator, and no search is conducted. They are also going to open the road that leads to Metcalfe Street. That is what I was told this morning. I think that is an improvement.

    Despite all of that, I think we are entitled to bilingual staff. Do you have the power to require or to recommend that the RCMP staff working on the Hill be bilingual, or should we take other steps to achieve this end?

    I will close on that, Mr. Chairman. I will come back on the second round to ask my third question.

    The Chair: I have to say, that as questions go, that was a world record.

[English]

    I say that because I don't want our new member to get the idea you can take six minutes for a question and then get six minutes for an answer. This is much more informal, and we will get back to the other parties, but I want you to know that.

    It was a good question, a very interesting question, but a very long question. I'm sure we're going to get a short, very interesting answer.

[Translation]

    MGen. G. Cloutier: On the last point, Mr. Chairman, I too found out last evening that the RCMP would be implementing this new practice next week. The Metcalfe Street entrance will be reopened to all members of Parliament and senators, to all parliamentarians. Of course there will not be searches. Parliamentarians will simply have to identify themselves in order to gain access to the Hill.

    It will take a week to introduce this. Even this morning, some police officers had not heard the news. We were therefore asking our members of Parliament to stop at the Metcalfe Street entrance. We have already been in touch with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to clarify this practice. You can expect that it may take two or three days before these individuals are repositioned, but it will happen.

    I come back to the other matter that you have raised on numerous occasions. I have discussed this with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We are on excellent terms with them. I believe their problem is that the constables working in these locations are not from Ottawa. They have been transferred here from all across Canada for a two- or three-month period. The RCMP does not have the necessary staff here in Ottawa to support such an activity throughout the year. So what happened was that these people came from the west or east to work here, and are not bilingual. However, the RCMP did not have the staff required to function in both languages.

    The Commissioner of the RCMP, myself, and the director have met on a number of occasions. Generally, we meet once a month. These problems have been raised. I hope that these efforts will enable us to find a solution.

    Perhaps Michel would like to add something on this.

Á  (1130)  

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: I raised this issue last week with some senior people at the RCMP. They are aware that they have a problem as regards bilingualism in this region. As Major General Cloutier explained, in order to deal with some crises, in certain parts of the country, they sometimes have to get staff from all parts of Canada. They do not have all the staff they require. They are very aware of this fact, and they confirmed that they would be making a major effort to try to deal with this problem in the National Capital.

    MGen G. Cloutier: We are dealing with the problem as regards our own officers as well. I am pleased that you mentioned this morning that there is a good level of bilingualism among our staff. We began using the new skills model five years ago, and I can tell you that it was a very difficult task to get everyone to conform to it, but we are seeing the results of that effort today, and I will always take time to ensure that security services are fully bilingual.

[English]

    The Chair: Colleagues, in all seriousness, I know this is a very informal meeting, but previously we've been on a 10-minute first round, and as you know, if we go with 10 minutes, it's 160 minutes. So I'm going to try to get back to our old routine of roughly five minutes, and then I'll go to a second round, because there are members who want to speak and I have a long list.

    General and Mr. Thivierge, the answer comes in with the question, okay?

    So it's Marlene Catterall, Yvon Godin, Carolyn Parrish, Dale Johnston, the chair, and then Michel Guimond, briefly.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: One of the biggest problems for members of Parliament with the security arrangements is access to taxicabs. Our members are leaving here with luggage, with briefcases. It won't be as bad now that there's no snow on the ground, but it's still a bloody pain in the neck and something that members of Parliament shouldn't have to put up with. Have we considered a means by which we can allow taxis onto the Hill, not jeopardizing security? There has to be some way of making sure that is possible.

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: I've had a number of meetings with the RCMP on this particular question, and the information I got back is that they're turning back. They don't want to come up. It's only a matter of a very quick check--the mirrors--to allow them to come up, but there are certain numbers that simply refuse to come through. I can only speculate as to why they don't want to come through the RCMP car wash, but it's not because they're being prevented from coming up.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: Okay.

Á  (1135)  

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: The interesting part is that it has been very sporadic. There are times when cabs go through with no problems at all, and other times, they arrive at the bottom and simply don't want to come up.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: Okay.

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: We've been addressing the problem, but that has fundamentally been the issue that the RCMP hasn't been able to--

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: So they are allowed on?

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: Oh, absolutely. They're allowed up. The RCMP are not stopping them from coming up. It's just that what they're asking--

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: They have to go through security.

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: They have to go through security.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: Is there any way, if you're now opening up the Metcalfe entrance, there could be some prearrangement for a cab coming onto the Hill to pick up a member of Parliament?

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: If the cab is willing to come up, we can make sure it comes up...if the driver is willing to drive up and pick up the member. In some cases I've handled for some MPs, the cabs have come up, no problem at all.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: Okay. I'm just asking if there's any way an arrangement could be made if having to go through security is the problem for the cab drivers. Is there any other arrangement that could be made so they can come directly onto the Hill, if prearrangements have been made, for instance, that they are in fact picking up a member of Parliament?

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: I can pass that question over to the RCMP and see if we can't come up with some arrangements.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: Many MPs are of the impression that they're not allowed onto the Hill to pick up the MPs.

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: They've always been allowed on the Hill. It's the drivers that don't want to come through the RCMP check.

    MGen G. Cloutier: The drivers feel that they're losing about 20 minutes of taxi production time by going through that, and that's the reason they don't want to come up. But that's a good question for the RCMP next week.

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: If it's a matter of time, it may mean just putting an extra two or three dollars on as a tip of some kind if that's an issue. I don't think that's a real problem for us, though.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: I've seldom found that it would take me that much time to go through the security checks, so I'm surprised if they're having that experience. But I guess at rush hour it may be that way.

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: It has also happened when there has been absolutely nobody in the lineup, like in the evenings. They're sitting there, and they could process cabs in three seconds.

    I don't want to speculate as to why. Part of it may be losing time, but there may be other reasons too.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: Okay. Maybe we need a little competition among the cab companies.

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: Well, that might be a good idea.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thanks.

    So it's Yvon, Carolyn, and then Dale.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: I would like to follow-up quickly on what Ms. Catterall was saying. I don't think it is just the time it takes, but the way they are treated when they try to come on the Hill. It is as though there were doubts about these people, because they belong to a minority. I do not know whether I need to go further: you understand what I am saying. I have a complaint about the way in which our taxi drivers are treated.

    We could ask the RCMP about this, and I could go and speak to the taxi drivers myself to get a better understanding of the problem, but that is what I have heard. They feel they are treated differently from others. People who have been working here for years seem to show some distrust of visitors. I think that is the greatest problem. I would like to hear what you have to say on this as well. All right?

    We have only five minutes, so I will try to ask several questions. A number have already been asked. I would like to talk about the extra cost for the House for security on the Hill, compared to what this used to cost. Will this become something permanent? How long will these practices go on? Will it be for two or three years? We are already talking about a new building elsewhere and relocating the road; so it seems like a long-term project.

    Could there not be a security system using modern technology whereby members of Parliament who arrive by car could use a remote control to raise the barrier and lower it again after they had passed through? Perhaps a new system could be put in place.

    The other thing is the west door of the Centre Block. Why can our staff not use this door? Only members of Parliament can use it. I am thinking mainly of employees who are authorized to be in the lobbies with us. They have to make a big detour. They have gone through a security check, but they have to go through a different door, with the same security officers. The card should be enough to reassure these officers. These employees have special cards that allow them to go into the lobbies. So I would like you to look into that.

    I do not know whether I am at my second, third or fourth question, but we may be talking about the RCMP next week. I'm having trouble seeing what the security people are doing—perhaps they will tell us—with the mirror under the car, when there are people in the car with backpacks that are not checked. I have trouble understanding what they are looking for with this little mirror. Once a car has gone through the mirror check, it can go to the west entrance, the one that looks out on to Wellington Street, just opposite the West Block door, and there's not even any security there. Cars can go there and someone could come in with five or six backpacks.

    Does this mean that we have security just so that people feel safe, or do we have real security? I do not raise this point to be difficult, but I think some things have to be said, because I see people laughing about this everyday. People can come on the Hill with a baby carriage, and no one knows whether there is a baby in it or not. However, we stop all cars and look underneath with a mirror. The security we have is expensive, and in my view is not effective. That is my honest opinion.

    RCMP officers are being brought here from all parts of the country, and there is already a shortage of RCMP staff in rural and other regions. And we're in the process of establishing a whole security system. At this point, I would like to hear your response.

Á  (1140)  

     MGen G. Cloutier: Mr. Chairman, so far, all the services we have offered, all the equipment we have installed in all the buildings, the scanning facilities, and so on, and training for 18 constables, have cost a total of some $1.8 million.

    As regards parking, I should have said earlier that with the new building that will be constructed on the Hill, there will be an underground parking lot for 380 vehicles. As you can see, that is the future. Two-thirds of the members of Parliament in the Confederation Building, Justice Building, and West Block will be housed in this new building, where committees will meet as well.

    So that means that all the parking will move to the west. We will therefore have to take some steps to regulate all that. In planning parking for this new building, I think that everything has been done to ensure that it will all be electronic. It will be like the Justice Building: we have the ultimate equipment in this building. The same will be true of parking.

    In addition, many of your employees have a parking space in the 850, which is on the west side of the Supreme Court. If the government's plans are carried out, there will probably be a Federal Court Building. If the Federal Court Building goes there, I will have to move our people. What will happen? I will ask Mr. Beaudry to give us a parking lot. There will be a new building put up at the corner of Queen and O'Connor, which will have 300 parking spaces. Construction will begin this fall.

    So there will be some relocation on Parliament Hill, but as far as members of Parliament go, I agree with you completely that things will have to be much more efficient than they are at the moment.

    With respect to the west door of the Centre Block, if we look back in history, this door has always been for members of Parliament. I was once a chief of staff myself, and we always had to go around to the other door. However, that is not the reason we have done this. The reason is quite simply that we want to reduce the number of people using this door. The distance between this door and the entrance to the House of Commons as such is very short. So when there is a crowd of people arriving by bus, they take up the whole entrance. If someone were to arrive or if someone in a group managed to sneak through and go up the stairs, he or she would be in the House very quickly. That individual would have to be stopped... So we wanted a very good traffic flow, but no crowds. That is why we have asked other people to use different doors. Other assistants and the press have been very good. They no longer use this door, and it is much easier for security purposes. That is the only reason, that is the main reason this was done.

    I have heard members of Parliament say that they are very pleased with this arrangement.

Á  (1145)  

[English]

    The Chair: Carolyn Parrish.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Marlene asked my question, which was on the cab issue. I am pleased to hear it clarified, because I called a cab once, and he explained to me, when I said just put your meter on before you go through, that the metering was distance as well as time, and it wasn't accurate. He also commented that a lot of the MPs were not exactly the most generous tippers on the face of the earth. I agreed to sweeten it with five bucks, and he was fine.

    That is an interesting dilemma. You can't get them to just flip the meter on, because it is distance as well as time, so sitting there is not going to help. But I'm glad to hear that they can come up. I did discover that a couple of weeks ago, and used it.

    Second, I want to thank General Cloutier. I sent him a note complaining bitterly about the parking problems in the new Justice Building. It has been fixed already, and there's no difficulty parking. It's very secure, because I can park close to the building.

    There's another question I want to ask, and it has nothing to do with anything we've talked about. What's happening with that ugly, old white building? If you ripped that out of there, we could put parking in there.

    MGen G. Cloutier: Yes. I've been eyeing that building for a long time.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: It's an embarrassment.

    MGen G. Cloutier: I'm told that in accordance with government regulations, this building has been offered to a federal department, and there was no taker; provincial, no taker; municipal, no taker. The next step will probably be an offer to the private sector. I'm told there is some interest. I'm praying every day someone will just buy it and move it.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: It's a heritage building, isn't it?

    MGen G. Cloutier: Yes. And to move a heritage building.... That building has asbestos in it. Before you move a building with asbestos, you have to remove the asbestos, and that will incur a lot of cost.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: It's too bad we can't just slap a coat of paint on it. It's an embarrassment.

    The Chair: Dale Johnston, then the chair, and then Michel Guimond.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guarantee you I won't take six minutes.

    The checkpoint will be relocated. Will this committee have any input as to the configuration and cost of this checkpoint?

    MGen G. Cloutier: Yes, Mr. Chairman, absolutely. Before we move on any of these major projects, I certainly would like to brief the committee and have their endorsement.

    I must give the committee a big thank you this morning. In 1980, I started the process with your committee--at that time we met every Wednesday-- for the new committee building on the Hill and the Justice Building. We started that in 1980. Now we're in the Justice Building, and this morning it was announced that we have the next building in line. That doesn't happen because we have blue eyes; it happens because of people like you, who can put the pressure in the right place for us.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Let me get this straight: 22 years is considered moving right along?

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    MGen G. Cloutier: I appreciate your comment.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Several years ago, as a result of some job action, there were some MPs who complained about not getting ready access to the Wellington Building. As a result of that, there was talk of extending the security area to include the Confederation and Justice buildings. Has that been done? If not, why not?

    MGen G. Cloutier: Yes, this has been done. We have redefined the area and it has been included in an omnibus bill. I don't recall the number of the bill in the House, but it has been done. In fact, our perimeter extends to the west side of the Kent Street extension. The reason I did this is for demonstration purposes. It means they cannot stand or demonstrate on the extension of Kent Street in front of the Justice Building main door. This has been done, yes.

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Okay, great.

    Of course, since September 11 there's been tremendous pressure and emphasis put on security, and I'm wondering how that has impacted on human resources and your security forces here on the Hill. If you could just bring us up to date on that, I'd appreciate it.

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: It has done a number of things. Our staff has done yeoman service since September 11. People have taken less leave. Naturally it has cost us more in overtime because we've had extra people. On top of that, if you look at Major-General Cloutier's response to budgets and what not, we've increased our staff by a number of people. We've gone up by 19 to maintain the present level of security. They're presently in training, and they should be graduating in about two weeks.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: That's 19 extra people. Do you foresee the need for even more people?

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: That is a very difficult question to answer, because it depends entirely on what's happening in the external environment, which we have no control over. If things continue to deteriorate around the world, we might very well have to increase our budgets or do business in a different way. That's an imponderable right now. I think in terms of the present situation, we're in pretty good shape.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: It seems to me that 19 wouldn't do much more than just sort of replace those who were retiring--look after the attrition rate.

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: No. Those are 19 additional new FTEs, to get rid of the administrative.... We've increased our personnel.

    Also, for scanning operations, we've picked up a piece of budget there, where we hire people on contract rather than have full-time staff. So we've increased in a number of areas, too.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Could we get some information on how that will affect your budgets?

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: That falls within that $1.8 million.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Oh, it does?

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: General, I have a short question and a more general question.

    The short question has to do with students. You've been there. It's remarkable what you've done, yet I think it's very sad you've had to do it. With regard to school children, where they don't have disabled students--and I'm sure you're making special arrangements for them--I don't object to their walking up the hill. In fact, I think it's probably a good idea. So the fact that buses pull up to the Peace Tower doesn't worry me.

    But what does worry me is that the teacher arrives with 40 or 50 young students. They go through the metal detector at the visitors' welcome and it takes 20 to 25 seconds a student, so you're into 20 or 30 minutes. Then, when they go into Question Period, they have to go through again. Imagine kids in grade seven and eight, or something like that. It's a terrible lot of time to keep those kids under control. I'd like your comments on that.

    On the more general question, I think you know that the evolution of Parliament on the Hill can be compared to the growth of the lichen. It's a plant that grows on rocks. It starts as a small plant and it grows outwards--

    A voice: Very slowly.

    The Chair: --very slowly, that's right. You can tell its age by how big it is. The other interesting thing is when it's doing that, it dies in the middle. So if you think about that, the Centre Block is the middle, it's dying, and the rest of it is slowly spreading and occupying the whole of Ottawa. I think there's some sense to that analogy.

    You mentioned the links and that your committee has people from the Supreme Court on it, and so on. I know there's the idea of extending the precinct of Parliament. But while that's all going on, in the physical sense the split jurisdiction really concerns me.

    Assuming all these expenditures and your efforts are necessary because of the new circumstances, I understand the security in the House of Commons is different from security in the Senate; the security here is different from that down on Bank Street; and once you go over Wellington Street it's the Ottawa Police. But while we're gradually somehow extending and making the precinct more controllable, aren't there some measures we could take, at least on the Hill itself, to bring together, if not fuse, the security services that operate there?

    So my first question is on the students, and the other is on the split jurisdiction.

Á  (1155)  

    MGen. G. Cloutier: On the students, I appreciate your point there, but think of the chamber and the west side of the Centre Block as one unit, and let's start with concentric circles. The chamber is your focal point. So the major security should be applied there. The director has the... [Editor's Note: Inaudible] ...type of approach. but.... Then we move from there.

    It's fine to have people who come through downstairs, but we don't know what they will pick up along the way. At one of the scanners at the main station, you'd be amazed at the knives and stuff we pick up. Once you get through the scanning there it's good for the building, but we don't have any control. Maybe people have gone through the Senate and they come through the corridors. Have they gone through the scanners of the Senate? No, because there is only one main station there. So we have no control over that. So once you enter the House chamber, we need that second checkpoint.

    The Chair: Without interrupting your flow, might I suggest that the tour people on the Hill, when they're dealing with schools that are making plans to come here, have a very strict set of instructions suggesting that the kids come with a minimum of clothing, a minimum of packsacks. Do you understand that if this were clearly done it might speed it up?

    Thank you for that. Please continue.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard--La Prairie, Lib.): Once the young people from a school are here and have gone through the checkpoint at the visitor entrance, would it not be possible to give them some kind of sticker that would indicate that they have already gone through the checkpoint instead of making them go through the same process again?

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: We cannot keep them under continuous surveillance, and that is the problem. There are the washrooms. Some times, these washrooms are being cleaned and there are pieces of equipment, etc. We can't do any visual monitoring. Once they have gone through the first checkpoint, they can do all kinds of things, they can go into certain corners and not be seen.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: I understand that. You said that there is no checkpoint at the Senate entrance and that this is why there is a risk that somebody could pass through the hallway and blend in with the crowd who enters here.

    I am simply saying that it is not any easier to identity those people who have gone through the entry points reserved for visitors and have already gone through security once.

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: But if we are unable to monitor them between this point and the third floor, prior to them entering the galleries, we have a problem, because we do not know where they have gone along the way.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: I understand that, but the people who go directly to the third floor, for example, those who wish to attend Question Period, and who are not wearing a badge or something else, have to go through security on the third floor.

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: Yes...

[English]

    The Chair: Can we leave that thought hanging there, because I have gone over my own time. I'll leave my question and perhaps I can get on again and we can get--

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: My apologies.

    The Chair: No, it's quite all right. It was exactly the sort of thing I was thinking about.

    We have Michel Guimond, then Marlene Catterall, and then Yvon Godin.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciated your humourous comment about the time that I had taken. You know that I'm not usually like that, but you also know that the committee meeting usually ends at 1:00 p.m. Since it is noon, we still have a good hour for discussions and all of my colleagues are going to be able to have their say.

    This brings me to my third and final point. As a member from a riding in the Quebec City region, I can recall, back in 1984, the unfortunate shooting incident in the National Assembly involving Corporal Denis Lortie. People were killed and your counterpart, Mr. Jalbert, was a real hero as the Sergeant-at-Arms. I must tell you that I'm no scaredy-cat; and indeed, I view myself as being somewhat bold by nature. And yet, when there are demonstrations in the galleries—young people have already thrown stuffed animals at us, some people sometimes simply want to shout out their sorrow or their concerns—our security officers respond very well and very quickly, but every time this happens, I never know what my reaction will be, I relive the events that occurred in the National Assembly in 1984.

    My question is as follows. As parliamentarians, you know that we belong to parliamentary associations and we have the opportunity to visit Parliaments in other countries. I am sure that my colleagues here have been to the House of Commons in London, to the National Assembly in Paris, to the House of Representatives in Washington. Consequently, we are able to see what the security is like there. I do not want to suggest that we have less security here, but security is a bit like work-related accident prevention: we are unable to measure statistically the number of incidents that have been avoided. Furthermore, security must remain hidden precisely because we do not want people to be able to get around it easily.

    My question is very specific. Have you done any comparisons, any expert analyses, or made any trips to be a position to tell us that we here, in Canada's Parliament, have security measures that are comparable to those found in any other democracy? I am talking about the world's organized democracies. We have already been to some countries, on certain continents, where there was practically no security. Anybody off the street could just walk in.

    How do our rules and prevention measures compare to what is done elsewhere in the world?

    We will never be able to prevent all unfortunate incidents from occurring, such as the one that took place at the National Assembly. A few years ago, a fellow drove his 4 X 4 through the main door. To my knowledge, this is the most recent event that was somewhat dangerous or hot.

  (1200)  

    MGen G. Cloutier: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I am very satisfied with the security that we have at present, but even in the great democracies, security has to be adjusted to the level required. Let's take England as an example. In England, security is much tighter, but then they have the problem with Ireland. If you were to go to England now, you would see that there is a new level of security which was not there beforehand. Given the crisis in Afghanistan and all of that, plus September 11, the security level has been enhanced.

    We must constantly adjust security based on the interpretations or recommendations of the units that provide us with the intelligence we need to operate effectively. That's the way we operate. We do not determine the level of security one day and keep it that way for 10 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years. It is constantly being reassessed, particularly since September 11. You can rest assured about that.

    I am just like everybody else: like you, I would like to see reduced security and go back to the days prior to September, but right now, I do not see that in the cards.

    Your question is along the same lines as the one put by the committee chair: Is there a more effective way of doing things? In 1984, we had suggested that we establish an integrated Senate and House of Commons security force on Parliament Hill. Should we re-examine this possibility? Should we re-examine the authority of the Speaker? As I was saying earlier, the Speaker's authority is limited to the buildings on Parliament Hill. Should this authority be broadened to include the perimeter of Parliament Hill so that all of the Hill security will be in the hands of Parliament Hill's security officers? We could have a joint force under the authority of a commanding officer, as is the case in Great Britain. In Great Britain, they have one force with one director reporting to the House and the other reporting to the House of Lords. The director in charge reports to the Sergeant-at-Arms and to the House of Commons regarding the main estimates.

    We are looking at the matter right now: we are determining what we could do to improve the situation while at the same time reducing costs. So your question is very typical and we are continuing to review the matter. I am sure that the Speaker is currently very interested.

  (1205)  

    The Chair: Michel, our committee will have to visit several different parliaments in order to verify all of these things.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, let's be satisfied with making a first big trip to Bank Street.

[English]

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: How many people do we have in security altogether--in addition to the 19 we just hired?

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: Between 250 and 260.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: Let me ask, in our new hirings, how well have we done in increasing the diversity of our security forces? In other words, how well are we respecting the principles of employment equity?

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: All staff who are recruited are of course bilingual, which is a must, I think, in this environment, and we are focusing on as many women as we can get our hands on. The fundamental problem--

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: Watch yourself, Michel.

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: I hope my wife is not listening to this.

    Fundamentally, the biggest stumbling block we have, if you're trying to reflect a multicultural society, is the institutions that engulf these people. We have to rely on who's coming out of law and security, etc. But overall, we're working hard to--

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: Of our 19, and of our overall workforce, can you give me the figures? And if they are, as I suspect they are, can you bring me an action plan in terms of how we're going to improve that?

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: I can't give you the figures right now, because I haven't looked at them, but I know I counted four ladies in the last class.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: And?

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: This reflects the ratio of individuals who are attracted to the type of training that goes toward security and policing.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: That's only one aspect of employment equity.

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: I did not see any visible minorities in the class, although we have managed to recruit some in other classes.

    MGen G. Cloutier: To put that in perspective, we've had about four sessions, and we received over 300 replies to our advertising. Out of that 16 were selected.

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: The tough part is getting people who are bilingual. As soon as you put that criterion in, you limit yourself to the regions from which people are coming in and to those who pass the standard testing.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: Maybe this is a question more for the Board of Internal Economy, but we are responsible for the plans and priorities and performance reports of the House administration as well, Mr. Chair. I would like the committee to get a report on an action plan to improve the diversity of our security forces.

    The Chair: General, you've heard that.

    MGen G. Cloutier: Yes.

    The Chair: The committee is very interested in receiving that.

    Michel, if you do have any actual statistics from the previous classes you mentioned, they would be of great interest to us.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: We have talked about security on the Hill, but I intend to quickly open an another door. We talk about security on the Hill, we talk about Parliament itself, which is protected. It is as though all of the MPs could be found in one single building somewhere, but where is security when you leave the Hill?

    For example, we are now in the process of installing, in each office, a panic button, but I have been told that this is not available throughout Canada. Furthermore, in some places, the cost of RCMP services is really high. We are spending millions of dollars here, on the Hill, but [Editor's Note: Inaudible] I am concerned not so much about the MPs, but about the employees who work in the offices. These people have responsibilities to the citizens and they may experience problems, particularly since September 11.

    I do not know if you are able to answer my question or tell me to whom I should be talking.

  (1210)  

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: Usually once someone has left this area, the municipal police or the RCMP take care of it, depending on the nature...

    Mr. Yvon Godin: But it is also a question of security and costs. I am talking about the panic button I have been using for some time.

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: That is in your office here.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: No, it is fine here. I am talking about my riding office. Why would the RCMP charge members, whereas here the member does not pay directly?

    An hon. member: It is in our security budget.

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: I fully agree, but in our budgets, we build that service. The RCMP must get its budget from somewhere. I think that is a problem: the RCMP cannot get money from the main budget, so it does costing for the offices.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, that is something we should look into because I am hearing a lot of members say, for example, that the security in their riding offices should be as tight as it is in Ottawa.

    MGen G. Cloutier: That might be a good question to ask next week.

    On the other hand, in some provinces, the provincial police steps in: in Quebec, in Ontario. But the question should be raised nonetheless. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to put the question now to the members present: Do you really have problems in your riding? One has already been mentioned.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: No, I was not talking about mine...

    MGen G. Cloutier: No, I am not talking about yours.

    I am not getting too many comments from members on that. There were some cases of theft, for example, in riding offices. So they go directly to the provincial or federal police...

    Mr. Michel Guimond: For the benefit of colleagues, during the anthrax scare, the riding office of my colleague Claude Bachand, from Saint-Jean, had received an envelope containing a white powder. It took a long time to find out who had sent it. The envelope went from the RCMP to the Sûreté du Québec to the municipal police. There were problems and his office was closed for two or three days. His staff was very worried while awaiting the results of the medical tests. Bear in mind that the Centre Block, I believe, has been closed because of an envelope thought to contain anthrax. And there is the case of Claude Bachand.

    But I must point out, Mr. Chairman, that afterwards—perhaps a lesson had been learned, the steps to be taken were clarified. There have not been any other cases, but that case was used to clarify the process to be followed.

[English]

    The Chair: General, I can comment on the same thing if you're interested. I would guess that it has nothing to do with terrorism, but two or three times a year since I was elected, the police--this is the local police--have had to come to my office, and at their recommendation we put up a sort of extra door. It's like a trap door, and I have a very small walk-up office in the back in case my staff need to leave because before they could not leave properly.

    The other thing you might be interested in is that we actually took off the voice mail, the answering machine, because of a whole series of obscenities that my staff had to listen to, which persisted for a number of months. So that gives you some sense.

    With regard to the RCMP, I think your remarks, Yvon, are good ones. I think we should ask the RCMP about that. We should try to remember that, Yvon.

  (1215)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, the House of Commons is protected. But the House of Commons is a building. Whom do we want to protect? It is the members who are in the House, who are there doing their work. But at the same time, in a democratic country such as ours, people should also be allowed to express themselves freely, but after they have expressed themselves and returned to their ridings, there is nothing to protect them.

    Let me give you an example. I had a company install an entire system in my riding, which doesn't bother me. It cost me $350 plus $20 per month. By pushing a button under the employees' desks—I do not have one under mine—without needing to make a phone call, a call is automatically made to Moncton. No one says anything and the message is sent that there is an emergency at the office located at 216 rue Principale in Bathurst, and the local Bathurst police arrives in less than two or three minutes.

    There are some regions that cannot have that. Whether it is the RCMP, the municipal police or the Sûreté du Québec, I am talking about a real emergency. If someone who has just lost his marbles enters... Not just for me, but for anyone else. You can make a speech in the House of Commons and then you have to go back to your office. Some people may not like the speech the member has just given in the House. So how can we protect ourselves in an emergency? We do not live just here in Ottawa; we go back home.

    The Chair: That is a very interesting aspect.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: It is one aspect of security that I would like to see discussed.

[English]

    It's the chair and then Jay Hill briefly.

    General, my question is this, and I know you've dealt with it. You mentioned 250 to 300 employees, and I wonder if that is for the House of Commons and the Senate? That's one question.

    Second, let me rephrase the point we were making here. If there were imminent threats, say within the next ten days, or it was expected that something would happen, my guess is that the chain of command would change dramatically, that overnight the differences between the Senate and the House would go and there would be a delegation of responsibility to you, or to the RCMP, or to the armed forces, or to somebody, and it seems to me that, as distinct from the evolution of the physical aspects of the precinct of Parliament Hill, this is something that could be done and, as you said, perhaps even save money.

    But it seems to me that split jurisdiction is asking for trouble, no matter what the arrangements are. Is it not possible--and perhaps this committee could help--for us to move to some more unified command for the immediate security of the Hill? That's the question.

    MGen G. Cloutier: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We've gone through that. I wrote papers in 1983. The Auditor General, in the last two audits, recommended that. In fact, they had a special audit on security and one of the recommendations was to move in exactly that direction.

    To get there, obviously, both Houses would need to be in agreement with us. Right at the moment I don't see any outward willingness, but we believe we have not addressed it as we ought to at the moment.

    The Chair: Do you not agree generally with what I said? There's the saving of money, potentially, but also if there were a perceived emergency we would simply do it. It would be tragic, would it not, to do it the day after some atrocity?

    MGen G. Cloutier: I can recollect the incident of the bus, for example, on a Friday afternoon at 2:30 p.m., when the bus came on the Hill and started shooting in front of the East Block. There was no question in my mind who had command. I took command. I advised the two Speakers. The House was suspended. The Senate was evacuated under my orders. Operational requirements dictated this at that time. I was ready to answer for my actions the following week as to whether or not it was constitutional. When they start shooting, I'm sorry, I'm here to protect you.

  (1220)  

    The Chair: But that is an aspect of the cure, isn't it? I mean, surely you can use the same argument for prevention.

    MGen G. Cloutier: Absolutely, yes.

    The Chair: I just wonder, colleagues, in all seriousness, whether there isn't something clear, following our inquiries today and Tuesday, we should follow up. There may well be others.

    Dale Johnston.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Actually, Mr. Chairman, you hit exactly on the points I was going to make. Maybe everyone else here knows the relationship, but I don't. What is the relationship between the House of Commons security and the Senate security? Since I have an office in West Block I'm aware that there are different security officers over there than there are over here. They have the red flash on their shoulder to signify that they're Senate security.

    First of all, what kind of interaction plan do the two security forces have? Secondly, what kind of interaction plan do the security forces have with the Ottawa-Carleton police force and the RCMP, exactly along the lines that Peter is talking about, a curative situation rather than a preventative situation?

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: We have a formal committee structure, as the Sergeant-at-Arms described in his opening remarks, where all the actors who impact on security of the Hill get together regularly and look at various issues, blending policies, etc. We do ongoing joint exercises to see where things fall through the cracks. We review things on an ongoing basis. So there are a number of things we do to try to make things work.

    At the same time, we still live in an environment where we have two masters. It's never absolute that you're going to get.... In an emergency, the one time you need a command and control structure, I can't guarantee how things are going to flip up if the two organizations are working within the confines.

    I mean, there are a number of models that can be designed to improve this particular issue, but the thing is all parties would have to agree that that's where we should be heading.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: When you say “all parties”, you mean the House of Commons and the Senate, don't you?

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: I mean the Senate and the House have to agree--

    Mr. Dale Johnston: I think it's imperative that we start the wheels rolling on that--

    The Chair: I'm sorry, Dale.

    John Richardson.

    Mr. John Richardson (Perth--Middlesex, Lib.): I 'd like to follow up on what Dale Johnston was saying there, that we're into a panic mode. I know the two gentlemen at the table have done a lot of planning, but a lot of it is a personnel thing. Our problems are all going to be about whether we've done it right with the personnel so they don't get caught up in a situation where there is damage or something else, something like a busload of guys or someone has come in and roughed up...? You know, it is happening a lot all across Canada and the United States.

    So I would say, whatever you do, make a preciously good program to see that we do, sir, have checkpoints, etc., that will be manned by people, that aren't left unsecured, so they would know that some 25 or 30 yards behind them someone else would be in the area seeing that the checkpoint is secured.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Colleagues, if I could, I'll conclude.

    General, there was a question about the 253 personnel that you mentioned. Is that the House of Commons or the Senate, or both?

    MGen G. Cloutier: No, the House of Commons.

    The Chair: That's the House of Commons. So the Senate might be....

    Mr. Michel Thivierge: It might be 70 to 80, roughly. Don't quote me on this absolutely, but my understanding from discussions with them is that it's around those numbers.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    General and Monsieur Thivierge, I want to thank you for this morning. There are two or three items we asked for, and I know you'll provide them.

    I would be grateful if roughly at 11:30 a.m. on Tuesday, General, you could arrange for a convoy of the little green buses for us.

    I think we've gathered...there may be two or three items that have already been raised that the committee might well want to follow up on, and we'll get back to you on that.

    Yvon Godin, briefly.

  (1225)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Speaking of the green bus with music, Mr. Cloutier, are you responsible for that?

    MGen G. Cloutier: Me...

    The Chair: We will have radios...

    Mr. Yvon Godin: It is a serious question.

    MGen G. Cloutier: Yes, we are responsible for that.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: I would like to ask you a question, but I would first like to make a comment. I think it is awful that a member or two filed a complaint, because there are 305 or 301 members of the House of Commons. We take the bus for approximately three minutes. My office is located in the building furthest away: I leave from the Justice Building to come here. To put it bluntly, I think it is cruel to expect a bus driver to stop listening to the radio all day.

    I would like you to review that decision taking the human element into account. If someone does not like the radio, I cannot understand why they would file a complaint. I do not even want to know who filed it. I think what they are doing to those bus drivers is awful.

    I am about to hop on a bus equipped with a radio and if the person who filed the complaint is on it, I will put it on maximum volume so that he can hear it and I would like to see who comes to turn it off. I think it is cruel, that it is wrong.

    The first thing you do when you get into a car is turn on the radio. Everyone does that. Here, you're taking away something from people who work hours on end and I can tell you the complaints are not coming just from the bus drivers. Even the members and other people have said that this makes no sense.

    MGen G. Cloutier: I must admit we have received complaints from both sides. Many mornings there are open-line shows. So some members get on the bus and hear comments that go against the philosophy of their political party and they are not happy.

    So I get complaints from both sides. Some people have asked me why the volume isn't turned down and why it isn't a background music station, one with soft music, instead of having rock 'n' roll.

    An hon. member: I like rock 'n' roll.

    MGen G. Cloutier: I do too, but if you look at municipal buses, there is no radio. It has become something of a favourite theme for some bus drivers. So we are looking into it, but I am pleased you broached the topic.

    The Chair: I agree with Yvon.

    Marlene Catterall.

[English]

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chair, given the discussion here this morning, I'm wondering if you should make inquiries. I want to know the answer to the question of which committee in the Senate might be having a similar discussion. I think it would be really good if we were going down and examining security installations with members of a comparable committee in the Senate.

    The Chair: I think we'd make that soon, because we're going to speak to the RCMP as well.

    Dale.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Along the issue of the radio, I agree with Monsieur Godin that if anybody is offended by what they hear on the radio, if their skin is really that thin, they've made a bad decision by getting into politics.

    The Chair: I think, General, the driver's comfort comes first.

    General, I want to thank you very much.

    We'll continue on Tuesday, as you know. After that, you've heard some hints around here that we may well be following up, and we'll be in touch with you both again.

    Thank you.

    The meeting is adjourned until Tuesday at 11 o'clock. We'll be here for about 30 minutes, and then we will proceed on our expedition.