PROC Committee Report

EXPANDED JURISDICTION FOR PARLIAMENTARY SECURITY

DISSENTING OPINIONS OF THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION

The majority of the Procedure and House Affairs Committee goes too far, too fast with some of its recommendations calling for an assertion of federal jurisdiction for security in downtown Ottawa and for the closure of Wellington Street.

That is why the Official Opposition would have given much greater emphasis to the Committee’s recommendation that striking the right balance in ensuring the Parliament of Canada is safe and secure while remaining open and accessible to all, including those peacefully protesting, should be the responsibility of security and policing professionals, subject to parliamentary oversight.

In fact, Conservatives would suggest that the Committee majority’s recommendations which prescribe solutions for security around Parliament Hill should have yielded to this perspective of letting the experts, appropriately encouraged to collaborate on finding the right approach, craft a joint proposal, from concept through to the necessary details.

It may be that the arrangements which the majority of the Committee has recommended is what may eventually come to be.  Certainly, we acknowledge there was evidence that it was the preferred outcome of some of the Committee’s witnesses.

However, we also heard—loud and clear—the importance of communication, collaboration, co-ordination and clear lines of responsibility.

Steve Bell, Ottawa’s then-Interim Chief of Police, spoke about getting not just the broad picture, but also the core details, right: “If we’re going to effectively respond to complex and shifting events, jurisdictional boundaries, responsibilities and collaborative strategies will have to be clearly spelled out.”[1]  Otherwise, the consequences could, regrettably, be “gaps in our response”.[2]  This was a message reiterated by the Ottawa Police Service’s Acting Deputy Chief Trish Ferguson when she later appeared.[3]

Former Ottawa Police Chief Peter Sloly put the issue in perspective for us in terms of what is easily achievable and what is not: “Legislative or jurisdictional change is the high-level fruit that is really hard to get.  It’s very timely and consuming and may not ultimately address the primary core issues that have been raised to me so far today.”[4]

The National Capital Commission, despite its much different mandate in respect of downtown Ottawa, through its Chief Executive Officer, Tobi Nussbaum, also highlighted the necessity of patiently working together:

I just wanted to reiterate that I think an important part in looking ahead to the future of Wellington Street is to double down on the collaboration and co-operation between federal and municipal partners….  I just wanted to underline our commitment to doing exactly that as we move forward.[5]

The need to double down on collaboration about Wellington Street is because it is not exclusively a security matter, but is also a critical artery for transportation in downtown Ottawa, for example.  Witnesses appearing from both of the National Capital Region’s public transit operators, for their part, noted the importance of access to Wellington Street, as both an essential component of their service offerings—including as a potential route for Gatineau’s tramway line into Ottawa—and as a backup detour route for buses.[6] 

As for that proposed tramway line into downtown Ottawa, the Committee also heard that collaboration with security professionals is a core component of its planning:

We are really stressing the security component, and we were doing this even before the demonstrations that took place in Ottawa.  We’re working with the specialized security services for everything relating to putting the streetcar line on Wellington Street, for example.  For the location of stations, we are taking security into account.  For example, I’m thinking of the Langevin Building and the place where vehicles heading for Parliament Hill are inspected.  For access to the judicial precinct and the parliamentary precinct, we are working with the security services.  That entire component will therefore be handled by experts.[7]

The Minister of Public Services and Procurement, who also has responsibility for the Commission, the Honourable Filomena Tassi, herself a former member of this Committee, stressed to us the importance of working with the full array of stakeholders in “getting this right”:

That’s why this study is so important, as is recognizing that we have to have a number of conversations.  You have to listen to a number of witnesses.  We have to engage all parties and stakeholders in order to get it right.  PSPC right now is in dialogue with the City of Ottawa, for example, on this very issue.  It is important that we get it right.

It’s also important to recognize right now that it’s challenging, because the jurisdictional issues and boundaries make it very difficult to act in ways that really protect the safety and security of people in Ottawa, of this area.  That is why this discussion is so important.[8]

Ms. Tassi called to mind a practical example of these delicate balancing acts when it concerns matters involving the National War Memorial, because

it used to be owned by four different landowners, but now it’s three.  The memorial itself belongs to PSPC, but think of the jurisdictional challenges when you have three landowners having to make decisions on moving the pathway forward.  Ultimately, we were asked in PSPC to construct a barrier, a fence.  It took time, because we had to ensure that everyone was supportive of that, that it was respectful and that was the pathway forward.[9]

Her colleague, the Honourable Marco Mendicino, the Minister of Public Safety, also observed the need to approach this issue prudently from a resourcing perspective: “Even as you look at the perimeter and a potential expansion of that, I do think again, … that we should carefully plot out resources so that there can be a high degree of communication and co-operation….”[10]

All told, Conservatives were impressed by the extent of evidence, and the cogent arguments, concerning the emphasis which ought to be placed on collaboration, especially when it comes to the intricate interactions involved in these issues.

That’s why we were pleased to hear that there are positive working relationships among the various partners and that the events of recent months have led to even greater awareness of Parliament’s unique situation as well as stronger inter-agency collaboration, as for example, explained by Superintendent Larry Brookson, the Acting Director of the Parliamentary Protective Service, throughout his June 21 and October 27, 2022, appearances.

In our view, the ever-evolving future of parliamentary security should leverage and enhance these dynamics, rather than be needlessly disrupted through the imposition of politicians’ instructions.

To be certain, we did not hear a compelling argument from witnesses that politicians ought to wade in and give directions to policing and security professionals.  Indeed, we heard views that the status quo was unsatisfactory to some and that stagnation on these questions would not be welcomed, but we did not hear that there was an impasse which only non-expert politicians could resolve.

To our minds, that means giving the appropriate professionals the necessary mandate and encouragement to compose a plan which can be sustained by the assorted stakeholders and other interested parties—which is what we believe the recommendation we highlighted in the opening passages would achieve.

In closing, the Official Opposition wishes to record its gratitude and respect for all of those professionals, in various agencies, who work hard to ensure the safety and security of Parliament, its guests, and the principles of democracy for which the institution stands.  It is that very respect which guided our perspective on who should be in the driver’s seat in terms of crafting proposals concerning these important questions.