Part 3, Division 10 of Bill C-59

Opening Statement to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security

Part 3, Division 10 of Bill C-59

28 May 2015

Michael Ferguson, CPA, CA
FCA (New Brunswick)
Auditor General of Canada

Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to discuss Part 3, Division 10, of Bill C-59, pertaining to the parliamentary protective service. I am accompanied today by Gordon Stock, Principal.

In June 2012, we issued our audits of the Administration of the House of Commons of Canada and the Administration of the Senate of Canada.

In these audits, we looked at the services each Administration provided in areas such as financial management, human resources, information technology systems, and of particular interest today, security.

Mr. Chair, I will summarize for the Committee our relevant audit findings related to security; however, it is important to note that most of our audit work was completed in February 2012, so we cannot comment on actions taken since then.

First, we examined whether each Administration had in place appropriate policies and controls designed to ensure a safe and secure environment for parliamentarians, staff, and visitors. We also examined whether each Administration had identified key risks and had implemented suitable mitigation strategies.

Overall, we found that the House of Commons Security Services responded to security risks by implementing standard operating procedures and providing appropriate training to the responsible personnel, and that the Administration of the Senate had mitigating controls for key security risks such as having a memoranda of agreement with the House of Commons and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to provide armed assistance if needed.

However, to ensure clearly assigned responsibilities and accountabilities within each Administration, we recommended that each Administration develop an overall security policy along with appropriate objectives and performance measures. The House of Commons Administration anticipated having its policy in place by 2015.

Second, we examined the procedures in place for communications and coordination among the three security partners—the House of Commons Security Services, the Senate Protective Service, and the RCMP—given that responsibility for the security of the Parliamentary Precinct is under their shared jurisdiction.

Before our audit, the three security partners had worked together and developed a Master Security Plan, and they coordinated operations through a jointly staffed Master Security Planning Office. After the plan was introduced, coordination and communications had improved. However, at the time of our audits, gaps still existed, highlighting ongoing jurisdictional issues. For instance, at that time, no security force had accepted primary responsibility for the roofs of buildings in the Precinct.

In 2010, each Administration had examined options for a unified security force for the Parliamentary Precinct. Each agreed on proposed changes to resolve the jurisdictional issues. The proposed changes involved integrating the three partners’ security services for the entire Parliamentary Precinct.

To that effect, we recommended that the House of Commons Administration and the Senate Administration work toward a unified security force for the Parliamentary Precinct. In our view, a single point of command and control accountable to both the House and the Senate would allow a more effective and efficient response.

The portion of the Bill before you today is a way of addressing the substance of our recommendation and I hope that our audit findings will be of assistance to the Committee in its current review.

Mr. Chair, this concludes my opening remarks. We would be pleased to answer any questions the Committee may have. Thank you.