HAFF Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, December 12, 2002

Á

1110

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

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC)

The Chair

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

Á

1115

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance)

Á

1120

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Á

1125

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. John Reynolds

The Chair

M. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.)

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

---

NUMBER 014

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, December 12, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1110)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, we're here today pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a)(i), consideration of security on the Hill. This was in response to the committee's own interest and a specific motion from the Canadian Alliance. We'll proceed with that in a moment, if that's okay.

    First I'd like us to return to the interim report on the ethics package, which we developed the last time. You recall that the purpose of the interim report was not to set in stone opinions of the committee, but to give some clear indication to those members of the staff who have been working on the ethics material of where there was general agreement on the committee and areas where we thought further debate was needed. I would normally have presented that report in the House yesterday or today. Ken Epp phoned me to say he was interested in attaching a dissenting report of some sort. It would be unusual to have a dissenting report attached to an interim report, because the interim report is not truly expressing the committee's opinion or reporting to the House exactly what the committee thinks. On the other hand, I have to say, if the appropriate motion had been made, it certainly would have been quite legal, and it is quite legal now. I deferred tabling that report until we heard from Ken Epp.

    I want to say one more thing to you, though. As I've missed two opportunities to present, I could have presented and returned to proceedings yesterday afternoon or to proceedings now, this morning. What I think would have been required is unanimous consent to return to presenting of the report. I'm not convinced, given the mood of the House today and tomorrow, that I would get that.

    Ken, we're in your hands. Would you care to speak to your point?

    Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Okay.

    I appreciate, first of all, your kindness, Mr. Chairman, in allowing this. I must confess to the members of the committee here that I really dropped the ball in not doing this yesterday. For some reason, even though I've been here nine years, I forgot that I actually have to make a motion. I'd just thought it was a given that the official opposition could attach a minority report to a report that's going in. I dropped the ball. My apologies for that. So I'm seeking your indulgence in doing this today.

    The reason we'd like to do this is that we have a great interest in making sure it is done in a thorough manner. In our minority report we're simply emphasizing, and we'd like to have on the official record, some of the things we have concerns about that go, I think, slightly beyond the intent of the main report. That's why we would like to have the privilege of having the minority report appended to the interim report when it's presented to the House, so that it's on the public record.

    The Chair: Rick Borotsik, then Joe Jordan.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Chairman, perhaps, with consent, we could have that reflected in the report itself, as opposed to having a minority report attached to the interim report. We don't know what the concerns are. If Mr. Epp would like to tell us what the concerns are, perhaps we would agree with them and just have them included. It is, as you said, Mr. Chairman, an interim report. It's just some of the areas we've got some general consensus on. Some of those areas Mr. Epp is prepared to bring forward maybe we can have a general consensus on as well.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Joe Jordan.

    Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I jwant to revisit the point Mr. Lee made last meeting. We're kind of on new ground here, because we're dealing with a draft and then we're dealing with a report, and its intention is to give the people who think deeply about these matters some indication as to the direction the committee is going. There's still a lot of work to do on this thing. Might it not be easier--and this becomes less formal--to just use this as a working document for members and the people who are working on this bill, and not bother with tabling the report? Because that kicks in a process I don't think is really required. That way, Mr. Epp's appendix can just be attached to it. That stuff in there isn't unanimous anyway, but just a body of information that helps these people figure out what they're going to be doing.

Á  (1115)  

    The Chair: I'll go back to Ken Epp on both points.

    Mr. Ken Epp: I don't think we should take the committee's time at this stage to go point by point through the items we want. As the interim report we proposed at the last meeting speaks in generalities, in a sense, so does ours. It raises questions and issues that we feel ought to be answered.

    The Chair: It would greatly simply things, including, I think, your desire to get that material out, if we did have a motion that our interim report become a working report. The intention was that we would circulate it to all members of the House with a copy of the necessary changes to the places in the Standing Orders and the Parliament of Canada Act that deal with ethics. So we were already circulating a package to all members. We could, with an appropriate motion, simply change that, and it would say “Working report of the committee for the information of members”, and it would include your attachment.

    Werner Schmidt.

    Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): I like the idea very much of making this a working document rather than an interim report. If you need a motion to that effect, I'm prepared to make it.

    The Chair: Okay. We have a motion from Werner that our interim report become a working report, that Ken Epp's attachment be added to it, and that it be circulated to all members with the other material we are circulating.

    Rick.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: All members of Parliament, not just members of the committee?

    The Chair: All members of Parliament.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Ken, I hope that's satisfactory.

    Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Marlene Catterall.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): On a point of order, Mr. Chair, concerning the Subcommittee on Electoral Boundaries, I would like to replace Mr. Tirabassi with Mr. Marcel Proulx as one of our members.

    The Chair: Okay. That is simply a change of the Liberal member. Are we agreed?

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Now, colleagues, if we could return to the matter in hand, which is security on Parliament Hill, let me repeat, we're doing this because the committee, earlier in the session, began reconsidering security on the Hill. The Canadian Alliance moved a motion that we should return to it, and I'm doing my best to do that. While we were waiting for this meeting, we wrote to a number of people, you will recall, and I believe you all have this material. You have a letter dated November 26 from Major-General Cloutier. You have a letter addressed to me from Dianne Brydon, Director of Parliamentary Public Programs, the tours and all of that kind of thing on Parliament Hill. Remember, one of the concerns was about students and others visiting the Hill. I have been advised that we have some correspondence from the RCMP explaining that correspondence was misdirected, and so we do not have the official reply from the RCMP.

    I'm in your hands, colleagues. We have relatively little time remaining in the session, I understand. How would you like to proceed with this matter of security? Can I go to the official opposition, as it is their motion?

    John Reynolds.

    Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chair, I would like have the Sergeant-at-Arms here as our witness, preferably in camera, to talk about security, not just because of the one issue I have--there are loads of others. I understand yesterday something happened in the Langevin Block that was quite scary. Somebody walked in with what somebody said was a grenade. They said, it's inoperable, and walked out. Then they walked through the building with it to get it checked out. I know that doesn't come under the House of Commons, and yet the Prime Minister is in that building. Things like that are going on. I think we really have to get to the bottom of how many security systems we have looking after the House of Commons. I think that's a key area, and a good way to start. And I think it should be in camera, because the Sergeant-at-Arms shouldn't be giving out his secrets to the world.

    So that's all I would like to ask to start with. Once we've had him, we could decide as a committee where we go from there.

Á  (1120)  

    The Chair: Yvon Godin.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Chairman, continuing in the same vein as Mr. Reynolds, since the committee will be adjourning for the holidays, I'd like the following message to be conveyed immediately to the Sergeant-at- Arms.

    I have some concerns about the Justice Building. For instance, security guards are posted at the rear entrance to the building on Victoria Street. The window glass is bullet proof and there are countless other details I could point out. We're not even supposed to talk to the security guards. Moreover, we must go through another security checkpoint upon entering the building. However, only one security guard is posted at the West Entrance, and that guard is located approximately 20 feet from the entrance. Frankly, anyone could run into the building, take the elevator and disappear. That's cause for concern. Workers in the Justice Building brought this to my attention this morning, realizing that we would be discussing security issues. They also identified other, more minor concerns, but this particular one should be looked into and a message should be conveyed to the Sergeant-at-Arms.

[English]

    The Chair: Joe Jordan, then Tony Tirabassi.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: If we're looking at how we might approach this, we may want to bring John O'Reilly in, because I think he's had a lot of experience and knows more about these things.

    One of the problems we have is that the new security measures are causing a backlog--it's underneath Centre Block--and you have people standing outside. You have school kids who are maybe a block from a bus that can no longer be parked on the precinct. I know the National Capital Commission is looking at this concept of a staging area where the buses would go. They would clear security and get on a kind of shuttle bus, and you don't have the backlog there. Whether it's at the new War Museum or wherever they may decide to put this, I think we need to bring the NCC people here and talk about that aspect of security. If we can get the crowds out from underneath the tower, where they're literally lined out of the door at times, it takes a lot of pressure off that particular aspect. They can clear somewhere else, because I don't think the building was designed to handle the crowds the way they're handling them. And as I say, when I see seniors and young kids standing out in the cold and the rain, I think we have to look at a fix, and I think the National Capital Commission is a good place to start having a discussion, because they're giving it some thought anyway.

    The Chair: Tony.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): If we were to have the Sergeant-at-Arms before the committee and we are going to be in camera, would we be able to discuss the details of exactly what happened when we had that specific case that caused all this? Would he be able to explain, step by step, their findings on what happened with regard to this individual who got into the same room as a Prime Minister and a former Prime Minister?

    The Chair: I think it was that incident that prompted the Canadian Alliance motion, and I think the answer is yes.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Through backtracking, we may find the weak links in the system.

    The Chair: Good point.

    I'd be glad to wind this up, but I'll also be glad to listen to you.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Will he be able to report on that?

    The Chair: We will make a specific note of that in our invitation to him.

    Rick Borotsik.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, I agree that the Sergeant-at-Arms should appear, and before he comes here, each member of this committee has to ask themselves just what standard of security they're looking for. If you're looking at locking the place down tightly and not allowing anybody, then that can be achieved. If you want to have access by citizens of the country, then that's a lesser standard of security, and I guess we, among ourselves, have to decide what standard and what level we want to achieve. I think there was a lot said about the incident. However, you can resolve that. That means nobody gets into the House of Commons, and if that's where you want to go, then let's tell the Sergeant-at-Arms.

Á  (1125)  

    The Chair: I'd remind you all that we do have information in the material we've already received.

    Marlene Catterall.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: I wonder if it is our purpose to set out here a program under which we will look at numerous aspects of security and try to move in a different, and hopefully better, direction. Or is it to begin with a focus on this particular incident and then move on? Or is it to focus particularly on this incident and what happened and how things could have been handled better? If we want to have a good look at this particular incident, I think one of the aspects missing is the protocol people and what their involvement was, the link between protocol and security when there is a major event like this under way.

    The Chair: We will try and mention that in the invitation.

    The exercise we're engaged in is a follow-up to our 67th report at the end of last year. When we came back, we had witnesses here, and we want a follow-up. We were specifically concerned about some of the things Joe and others have mentioned. The incident John Reynold's motion referred to simply gave point to all of that.

    My suggestion would be this. First of all, on the matter of the Justice building, we will refer that specifically by sending the blues of this meeting, the extracts, your description, with our invitation. My suggestion is that we have a meeting initially in camera with General Cloutier. He will have access to the blues as well. He has already sent us the initial material. We'll have that first meeting with him. Then we could have detailed information here from Dianne Brydon, either in camera or in public--we should perhaps have a meeting which specifically deals with that. Whether Dianne, as the person in charge of tours, comes on her own, whether by then we get advice that someone should come with her, we'll come through with that.

    The first meeting would be General Cloutier, following up on his letter to us, following up on our report for the last time, specifically mentioning the incident, the time of the unveiling of the portrait. Then the follow-up meeting would be Dianne Brydon. The meeting would specifically mention the Justice Building, the point we have raised here. Are you comfortable?

    Yvon Godin.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: If you want to send them the blues, I want to go on record to thank them. This morning, when I came out of the Justice building, they were working on the lightsm because we were asking about the lighting around the Justice building. I saw people were working to put up the lights, and I hope they put enough up for the security of the workers and the members of Parliament.

    The Chair: John Reynolds.

    Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Chair, I expect that we would do it by the first meeting when we come back?

    The Chair: Yes, only subject to General Cloutier's ability. We'll proceed with that.

    I want to wish you all a happy Christmas. It has been an interesting session, I think. Despite some of the setbacks from some people's points of view, I think it has really been quite productive. I greatly appreciate the way you have worked, and the generally cooperative way in which you have worked.

    The meeting is adjourned.

    Jacques Saada.

    M. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Each political party holds parties. Since we are a family here, around this table, why don't we organize a party for the gang here?

    The Chair: The meeting is adjourned to the call of the Chair.