Parliamentary Privilege and Security

An arcane concept that can prevent coups

It is not without irony that the Conservatives are referring to the Parliamentary Security as a tool of the government after last week’s events surrounding the Speaker’s invitation to a World War 2 veteran who turned out to have been a volunteer with the Nazi’s Waffen SS. It was, after all, the Harper government that placed Parliament’s own security under the auspices of the RCMP, a wrong which has yet to be righted.

On October 22nd, 2014, a lone gunman with a century-old rifle arrived on Wellington Street in front of Parliament Hill in an unplated vehicle. He got out, shot Corporal Nathan Cirillo in the back, ran up to Parliament Hill, carjacked a vehicle, and entered the front door of Centre Block, shooting unarmed House security officer Samearn Son. He ran the full length of the Hall of Honour, passing between the sitting NDP and Conservative caucus meetings, before being killed by RCMP Constable Curtis Barrett and House Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers. 

In the weeks that followed, it became clear that parliamentary security was badly siloed and uncoordinated, unable to efficiently handle the bizarre circumstances that were faced that day, and simply lucky that the outcome was not far worse.

The Harper government quickly moved to restructure parliamentary security under the aegis of the RCMP, whose authority on Parliament Hill had traditionally stopped at the doors of the buildings, with even the Prime Minister’s personal RCMP detail handing off protection to plain-clothes Commons security officers indoors. The separate House and Senate security services were consolidated and combined with that of the scanner operators, the people who run airport-style security at the building entrances.

Immediately, questions were raised about protecting the independence of Parliament. The Hill's security personnel would no longer operate purely under the authority of the legislature that they were there to protect. Henceforth, they would be under the operational control of the RCMP. While the RCMP operates at arm’s length from the government, the Commissioner ultimately depends on the confidence of the cabinet.

Just nine months after the incident, on June 23, 2015, the new Parliamentary Protective Service (PPS) got up and running, but the issue of the independence of Parliament was not substantively addressed. Over the next years, many MPs argued that it was critical to remove the Mounties, a police force controlled by the government, from the parliamentary precinct, unless called as backup to the House’s own security service. To these MPs, of whom I was one, an existential, if arcane, threat to Canadian democracy had been created.

In the previous system, the House and Senate were each responsible for their own security, under the auspices of their speakers through the Sergeant-at-Arms and the Usher of the Black Rod, respectively, thereby ensuring their independence — but not their coordination. In the new system, the director of the PPS must, by law, be a uniformed RCMP officer, meaning he or she reports on operational matters to the commissioner of the RCMP, regardless of whether the PPS officers working in the precinct are themselves Mounties. Only on policy and budget questions does the director consult with the two speakers.

Cabinet ministers are almost always elected members of the lower house. More important, however, they are the government. While the public often conflates the government (the executive) and the legislature, centuries of events and tradition have ensured and expanded the separation of powers between them. Heads have quite literally rolled on this point.

The principle of the separation of powers seemed thoroughly theoretical when the security services were being consolidated. Yes, in theory, a future Prime Minister could order a future commissioner of the RCMP to order a future PPS officer to prevent an opposition MP, or several of them, from entering the chamber to cast a vote, perhaps even a vote on a confidence motion. Blocking certain members might save the government of the day from falling — a de facto coup.

Theory, yes. But all this is possible. It is why I fear that the executive’s control of the legislature’s security presents a clear and present, if long term, danger of dictatorship.

But dictatorship could never happen in Canada, could it?

On Jan. 6, 2021, the question left the realm of academic theory. Intent on a coup, defeated U.S. President Donald Trump urged his supporters to storm the Capitol in Washington. They swept aside the woefully undermanned Capitol Police, looted offices and left seven people dead. The Capitol Police are controlled by the legislative branch, by the two houses of Congress. As we have learned since, the executive branch had advance notice (through the FBI) of the impending attack, but did not warn Capitol Hill on time. And, critically, the executive branch through the secretary of defence stalled for three hours before ordering the National Guard to break up the riot, only permitting intervention when it was evident that, as a coup attempt, the assault had failed.

Donald Trump manipulated the separation of powers to his nefarious purpose, abusing his position to prevent the physical protection of the legislature. That the threat to democracy, perceived as hypothetical in Canada, became reality in our backyard is a stark warning.

While the current government respects the autonomy of the PPS, in spite of the Conservatives’ assertions last week through their former leader who happened to be the Speaker on October 22nd, they certainly have the power not to. It was the feeling when I pushed our government to act that we — Liberals, Canadians, pick a ‘we’ — would never abuse the power that prevented action on solving it this existential danger. My one proposed Private Member’s Bill sought to change the law to remove the RCMP from authority over the PPS — but could not proceed because it required a royal recommendation — the head of PPS, if it was to not be a Member of the RCMP had to be paid. And that single salary meant that the change would affect the Crown’s prerogative regarding the spending of public money.

"Privilege" – the right of MPs and senators to work unobstructed – is little understood, but critical to the functioning of Parliament. The RCMP cannot both report to the cabinet and protect the legislature if our democracy is to be secure.

One day, the Mounties will have to make a choice, and it may not be the right one.