:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry that we weren't able to have this discussion a week ago when I would have had with me Lord Tyler, who is a member of the House rather than an official and would have been free to express views more trenchantly than I can, but I'll do my best.
Perhaps at this stage I should briefly explain my own involvement with the election process we use in the House of Lords for our Lord Speaker.
Until 2006 the Lord Chancellor, who is a cabinet minister, was ex officio presiding officer in the House of Lords, albeit in a rather ceremonial role. In June 2003 proposals were announced for initially the abolition, and later the reform of the office of Lord Chancellor, and the House of Lords was invited to choose its own Speaker. In July 2003 a select committee was appointed. I was clerk of the journals at the time and therefore served as clerk of that committee, which in November 2003 recommended the system of election which we've now used twice. The election of a Lord Speaker was then put on hold for awhile because there was controversy about removing the Lord Chancellor as presiding officer until the future of his post had been resolved. Following the passage in 2005 of our Constitutional Reform Act, a similar committee was reappointed and reported again in December 2005, basically with the same recommendation in relation to the method of election. Once again I was the clerk of the committee.
The only reason the committee gave for adopting the alternative vote was the statement that it had been “successfully used in the first by-election to elect a hereditary peer, in March 2003”. As clerk of the journals I was the official mainly responsible for running that byelection and indeed for running the first eight byelections. When the first election came in 2006, again as clerk of the journals, I was the official principally responsible for running the election, and then we used it again in 2011. By then I was holding my present post of Clerk of the Parliaments, the equivalent of Clerk of the House, and was returning officer. I've been very closely involved in both elections and in the use of the alternative vote for electing hereditary peers.
I hope this is helpful to the committee. I put in a two-page note with some background, including a rather curious history of how we have come to elect hereditary peers, which I hope will provide a basis for your questions. I won't try to summarize what's in the note, but I'll be delighted to answer any questions the committee may have.
:
No, I hear you, and that helps. That mitigates it. Nonetheless, it's an advantage that Mr. Reid has that all the other sponsors of bills do not have, and we can only do our work if we're seen to be fair-minded by our colleagues.
However, I am a big believer, notwithstanding the abuse that Mike Harris made of the term, in common sense. I think in this case certainly I would be prepared, without prejudice but without setting a precedent...and only in the questions and only because it came up late. In future, we should make it clear that there is no role for the sponsor other than coming in as a witness at any time.
Since we didn't do that ahead of time and it would just disrupt everything, I'm making the case that we'll go along with it this time. But it's a one-off and without prejudice. We should be reaffirming somewhere, if I might leave it with the clerk, that in future, if a member wants to play a role at all, they have to disconnect themselves entirely.
But for the purposes of today, we can live with it without prejudice.
I agree with that. I think I won't need much time to relate what happened.
First of all, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chair, as well as the members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, for hearing me today, so that I can speak about this incident which occurred on September 25, 2014.
I was in my office in the morning between 10:00 and 10:30 a.m. As all members know, a bell was heard in our offices and the lights went on. It was as though the police had turned on their headlights. This reminds us to go and vote. It reminds us of our responsibility as parliamentarians, which is to go to the House of Commons and vote.
And so I left my office and the Justice Building. I took the little green shuttle bus that brings the members to the House of Commons and back to their offices. When we arrived at the back of the Confederation Building, the green bus stopped. The driver told us that it would be better for us to get off since the cars had been stopped for a while. Indeed, the line went from the rear of the Confederation Building right up to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police post inside the gates. The line was already quite long, and the bus driver told us that we would not be able to get through.
So I got off the bus with my other colleagues who were also on board. We walked up to the entrance which is at the front or on the side of the Confederation Building. If you are on Bank Street and you look south, it is to your right, just in the entrance.
I arrived there and there was an RCMP officer on Bank Street. I told him that I had to go up to Parliament. He answered me in English: “Get on the sidewalk”.
I saw that he did not speak French. And so I replied to him in English, as follows:
[English]
“Well, I am a member of Parliament and I have to go up.”
He answered in a very serious manner. He said, “I don't care, and get on the sidewalk”. I had just moved off the sidewalk in coming up. My colleagues behind me were from all parties. There were members from the Conservative Party and the NDP. I said, “Well, there's a vote up there and I need to go.”
The invited guest was not in yet. They were waiting for the invited guest to come in. I think it was the president of Germany who was coming in. I said that I really needed to go in, that there was a vote. He said, “I just don't care if you have a vote.” I pushed it a little more. I said, “In your view, in your attitude, you don't care, but it could be a vote that could bring the government down, a vote like that.”
You know and we know how votes go. It could be a vote like that.
I was pushing it right to what it could be and to our responsibility, and I said, “It could be a vote of confidence.” He said: “I don't care about the Parliament. I don't care about your vote. Just stay there and you don't move.” I said to the officer, “Well, I can tell you this: you are wrong.” I made the decision at that time to back off.
At the same there was an officer from the city of Ottawa there, a woman with a motorcycle. She was off her motorcycle. She said, “Sir, get on the sidewalk.” I remember what I said to her. I said, “Don't get mixed up in this one here; I'm dealing with the RCMP.” But then I stayed. After that, he walked across with me and he walked across the road. He said, “I'm just doing that for your safety.” I said, “No, it's not right what you've done, and I don't agree.”
One of my colleagues, , was there as a witness. He heard the officer doing it. Just this morning I spoke to , and they had another incident on the bus at the same time. The bus chauffeur didn't even want her to get off the bus. They had to argue with the bus chauffeur and say that they had to get out, but it didn't work out, because they could not go through either. I also hear—and you could check—that the immigration minister, , was stopped from going through.
[Translation]
I spoke to the Speaker of the House of Commons. He was stopped as well. I don't remember if it was Thursday or Friday morning. His car was even searched by the police. He was in a hurry to go and open the sitting at the House of Commons. He told the police he was the Speaker and that if he could not get up there, the House of Commons could not begin its work. Once again, the attitude displayed could be summarized in the following way: “That's just too bad, not our concern; you can't go up there.”
Mr. Chair, members of the committee, I think this was totally unacceptable. For the record, I want to remind all members of the committee of one definition of parliamentary privilege, which is as follows: “Pursuant to parliamentary privilege, the holder has full access at all times, without obstacle or interference, to the Chamber of the House of Commons the holder is a member of.” That is what constitutes our privilege.
I will go even further. The police are supposed to ensure the security of members, but if they don't recognize us and if something happens involving the public at large, we may wind up being the victims. This is a very important matter.
When Bill Blaikie sat in Parliament a similar situation occurred. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs studied the issue at the time. As you know, I was the NDP Whip at the time. The committee agreed that it was time for this to stop. Two years ago, in 2012, another incident occurred. Once again, we said that this had to stop. And yet, it happened again.
Mr. Chair, I have this privilege. I was elected by the citizens of the riding of Acadie-Bathurst to represent them. Parliament has its reasons to grant us a privilege which excludes interference. This implies the responsibility of letting us get in at all times.
I will simply add to that, openly, that the next time, I'm going to go through. They can deal with their problems. I'm going to take my privilege seriously.
:
Yes. Thank you very much.
I agree with Mr. Lukiwski. I can't imagine that anyone would be opposed. This is one of those issues where it's quite possible a whole lot of the public goes, “Oh, there they go again with their egos and everything”, and you know what? We're just going to have to suck that one up, because this is really not about us as individuals. This is about the rights and privileges of whoever is elected by the Canadian people to serve as a member of Parliament. That's what matters.
I notice from the previous report, Chair, that they can trace this back to April 12, 1733, where they said:
That the assaulting, or insulting, or menacing of any Member of this House in his coming to, or going from the House...is a high infringement of the Privileges of this House, a most outrageous and dangerous violation of the rights of Parliament, and a high crime and misdemeanour.
Interestingly, zoom ahead a few hundred years, and in 2004—lest anyone think this is just some archaic notional thought—the House said again: “Members are entitled to go about their parliamentary business undisturbed.” It further stated that the breach of this privilege was not only unacceptable but a contempt of Parliament, which is one of our highest crimes in this place.
The fact remains that when a member is denied access anywhere on the Hill or anywhere that they're entitled to as a member of Parliament, every one of their constituents is disenfranchised at that moment, because under our system we are the voice and representatives of all those people. If we're denied our opportunity to do our full job, then they've been denied—let alone the fact that there was a vote going on, which just heightens it that much more.
So I'm like my colleagues: we don't want to turn this into a total federal case, if you will. We have an awful lot of big issues. But I do think it does warrant going through the steps and then finding one more level of getting it across.
My thought was the same as Tom's, Chair, that this time, no assistant commissioners; the commissioner comes in. I think the Ottawa police play a role, so bring the Chief of Police in here. That's how you're really going to change it. Once it becomes known that this is a big deal, it will stop.
I agree; I can't imagine that the officer thought to themselves, “I've got my hands on an MP here. Now I'm going to show them who's got the power.” That's not what happened. But it's also unacceptable what happened to our colleague under any circumstance, especially during a vote.
If someone says, “Yes, it's security”, then our response is that those who are organizing it—i.e., the PMO and others—have an obligation to organize the visitors in such a way that it doesn't trample on the rights of members of Parliament. It's that simple and it's that important.
So to Yvon, I don't really have a question other than wondering if he has a recommendation or two that he specifically would like us to look at. Having been a whip, he certainly understands the functioning of this place better than most members.
That would be my question to you, Yvon; your thoughts on steps that we should or could take.
:
This has nothing to do with ego. It's the Parliament of Canada. This is our democracy. We have a responsibility. We have been elected as members of Parliament, all of us, and this is our privilege. I will speak for the people of Acadie—Bathurst. I'm here to represent them. It's not about Yvon Godin; it's about representation.
It's not only the votes in the House. If we have committees going on and there is a vote that could happen at committees, we don't get bells for that. If we get called by our whip and told, “I want you in that committee”, I have the right to vote in committee. I have the right to make speeches in committee. I have the right to my voice. We all have that. It's our privilege. That's why it is so strict.
This is the place for making the laws of this country, and it's our responsibility to educate the public. It has nothing to do with us. It has something to do with them, because we are representing them, and that's what it's all about.
One recommendation that Mr. Lukiwski was talking about, and I took it really seriously, was that when visitors come in and they intend to block the place he'd maybe have a meeting with the people who are going to be on the site doing the security and tell them how they should proceed. It could be done in the morning. If the convoi is coming in at 10:30, maybe at 9 o'clock they'd get the people in and say, “Okay, here are the rules”. Remind them, because this is just—I'm sorry, but one day something is going to happen, and we'll say, “Look, it's because of what is happening in the yard”, and the member was not just refused access onto the Hill, but he lost his privileges on the committee. He lost his privileges in the House of Commons. He lost his turn to speak. That's why I am emphasizing that privilege be respected.
:
You know, Yvon, I do appreciate the sensitivity of this particularly issue. There's virtually not a week that goes by when I don't really get an appreciation for the privilege I have, as an individual, even to be here, to be a member of Parliament.
Having said that, I do know if I were to put myself in your shoes, or those of anyone who was being denied the opportunity to be where he's supposed to be to fulfill his responsibilities, it would be very upsetting. I'm trying to think of what we could do to improve the system. The thing that came across my mind as I listened to others provide comment was that if I were trying to get onto the Hill and someone were preventing me from getting onto the Hill, I would like to be able to contact someone, maybe pick up the phone. We have 24-7 RCMP officers at the gate so maybe there's a phone number that you can just call and state your name and say you are having a problem, and ask if someone can come. Do you know what I mean?
Is there an answer? It seems to me that this comes up periodically, and no matter how many times we have briefings and so forth, maybe the real answer is that we need to have someone inside who we can just contact to say we're having a problem, and that would initiate a call to the Speaker's office so nothing would take place inside the Chamber because they would realize that there was a problem with a member getting access, and that would heighten the importance of this.
I am looking for solutions, as you are, because I know if I were in your shoes, I would be upset because I had a right to be there and I would wonder how I was going to get there and what I should do. We all have phones nowadays. If there were a phone number I could call to get the Sergeant-at-Arms and the Sergeant-at-Arms could then get it straightened out, it would take two minutes and then at least I would have access.
Can you think of some ideas?
:
Certain aspects do concern me. First of all, the responsibility of the people who guard the House should be to let us go by. We should not have to use the phone. It could happen that the phone doesn't work, or some other such thing. It is up to them to see that this doesn't happen. When it comes to security, there are chiefs, people who are responsible, supervisors.
The officer said this:
[English]
“I'm following strict orders”. That's going further than just him. He said, “I'm following strict orders that nobody goes through”.
[Translation]
We have to solve this problem.
Mr. Lukiwski said that the person should perhaps have their identity card or their PIN. But what happens when a member does not have it, and he or she misses the vote and the vote goes the other way? I don't think that is the solution.
They have to be able to recognize the members. They even refused entry to the Speaker of the House of Commons. This is no longer a small problem. Some mechanism has to be put in place and it can't consist in phoning someone and reaching the wrong person. The member shouldn't have to start calling all over the place. Some mechanism has to be put in place for the persons who work at the House of Commons. There is no problem regarding the security guards at the House of Commons. At the door of the House of Commons, there is no problem. We don't have time to discuss it now, but even that should be examined. That day, because the red carpet had been put out, some members had to go through the basement in order to cross to the other side and go up the stairs to go to vote in the House. Perhaps the issue of the circulation of members within the House should be examined as well.
Those are the orders they had received. They told us that they would not stop us from going to the chamber, but that we had to use the basement. Some people use wheelchairs. Our privilege has been violated in the course of the last years.
That is what I had to say on this matter.
:
I'm not taking that long.
I know how this works. The RCMP is very much like the military and there are SOPs. This is a failure of leadership. They are normally supposed to be briefing their people. If they have new people on the Hill, then they're supposed to get briefed and know who is who. To Mr. Lukiwski's point, they should have a handbook on hand in case they don't recognize an MP. In this day of security threats, you can understand why the average cop on the street is trying to be vigilant. Nobody wants to let the bad guy through. But the fault lies with the leadership. There are standard operating procedures, SOPs, that they follow in coordination with the Ottawa police. Clearly that fell apart.
I don't expect the Ottawa police to recognize all MPs. When you are off the parliamentary precinct, whether you are wearing this pin or not, you are subject to the laws of all of Canada, for speeding tickets and things like this. In the parliamentary precinct where the RCMP have primacy, they are supposed to understand the standard operating procedures and what is supposed to happen. In the military, the leadership was responsible for periodic safety briefings, for example. Kevin may remember this.
Safety briefings are an annual thing, but probably on the Hill you would want to do them more frequently. You would have your briefing, go through the checklist and say, “These are the things you have to do, this is a privilege the MPs have, this is how they do it. If you can't recognize them, here is a book with a current list of MPs.” In fairness, anybody could locate a pin like this, right?
I understand some of the challenges the guy in the street would have. I don't disagree with having the commissioner in here. This was agreed to once; a course of action was laid out. It has been forgotten and not followed through. He needs to be hauled up on a carpet.
The way they work is also with written statements, as in the military. The witness gives a written statement saying, “here it is, this is what happened, such and such a date, this person, that person, that action”. It just helps corroborate the entire scene.
I think you are absolutely right that we have to address this issue, but at the end of the day I don't think we have to spend an exhaustive amount of time on it. This is something that I think lies with the leadership. When the leadership is called in.... I'll tell you, when the commissioner is here I don't think this is going to happen a third time. I think they will get a grip on it and put procedures in place. They should be mandated to have a quarterly briefing as to what happens in different scenarios: MP on the Hill, MP on the Hill with an entourage, MP on the Hill with a world leader, whatever. It's pretty simple stuff to put together. They've been through all these scenarios. They know them.
When they get new people on the Hill, somebody has to show him the ropes and give him that briefing. If that doesn't happen, you can't fault that one constable, he is trying to do his job, he just didn't understand the ramifications of what he stopped you from doing.
In fairness to them, I think we should all carry our ID cards and our pins, ideally.
If they don't they need to be briefed ahead of time on the rules, especially if somebody assumes a new post on the Hill, they should be briefed immediately when they arrive. That's it. That's all.
:
On some of the stuff I could agree with you, and on some, I don't. Their job is to protect us. When the pages come here to work on the Hill, they already have to know 75% of the members before they come into the House of Commons. When we do our first vote, the Clerk of the House knows the 308 members of Parliament on the first call of the vote. If they have responsibility for security on the Hill, then they should know who they're dealing with.
The attitude of the officer was that he was not just doing his job, but he said he didn't care about the member of Parliament. He didn't care about Parliament. He didn't care about the vote. That attitude has to be looked at by the force, that you don't deal with people in that way. Okay? We're not 9-1-1. We're not terrorists. We're the members of Parliament who have been elected by the people and the citizens of this country to be in the House of Commons and to make laws for our country, and to keep our democracy at its best.
I'll stop here.
I hope you do the right thing and do a good job on it, because even if you bring the leader of the RCMP in, I am sure that when we dealt with it in 2012 the leader knew what was happening, and he didn't have to come here to do his job. When it was done during Bill Blaikie's time, he knew what was happening, and he didn't have to be brought in. I hope he's brought in and he knows what the responsibilities are, and when they take responsibility for coming onto the site of Parliament, they know that they have a job to do.
My privilege and the privilege of all the members who have to go through was violated that day, and that was wrong. This is our privilege.