Liberals want to redefine Parliament Hill for security reasons

Liberal MPs who sat on the House of Commons committee to assess parliamentary security after the “freedom convoy” passed say Parliament Hill should be redesigned to encompass surrounding streets.

According to the MPs in question, the City of Ottawa should transfer land to the federal Department of Public Services to allow Wellington Street and Sparks Street, a pedestrian street south of Parliament Hill, to become part of the ‘pregnant.

This position is stronger than that taken by the majority of the deputies of the committee, who only suggested the transfer of the land “if necessary”.

The Conservatives do not agree with these recommendations, since they believe that politicians should not be in charge of security.

In its eight recommendations, the committee also maintains that the same streets should be part of the intervention territory of the Parliamentary Protective Service and that Wellington Street should be closed to traffic between Kent Street and the National War Memorial.

This section has been mostly blocked since the end of the occupation of the “freedom convoy”, which paralyzed the city center of the federal capital last winter to voice its dissatisfaction with the sanitary measures linked to COVID-19 .

The acting director of the Parliamentary Protective Service, Larry Brookson, is said to support the idea of ​​bringing Wellington Street under his jurisdiction. The committee also recognized the “evolving threat environment” of the Hill and that the service should have “the necessary resources” to ensure its security.

“The right to grant public access to the parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill belongs to Parliament, as an institution, and to its members. The safety of parliamentarians, staff and the general public is essential, and not merely incidental, to enabling Parliament to conduct its business,” concludes the report of the procedure and House affairs committee.

“The Committee recognizes the importance of ensuring the safety and security of parliamentarians, staff and all persons within the parliamentary precincts, while seeking to preserve the welcoming and open character of the nation’s capital. »

The recommendations, released shortly before the House of Commons adjourns for the holiday season, stress that consultations and discussions with stakeholders must continue, including with Indigenous groups.

Better cooperation

The majority of committee members are also calling for the creation of a new working group between those responsible for parliamentary security, the Ottawa Police Service, the Ontario Provincial Police and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

This group would “establish an effective and coherent plan in the event of incidents on Parliament Hill,” the report states. It would meet at least twice a year and begin work on a “genuine post-mortem of the various incidents that have occurred on Parliament Hill over the past 20 years.”

These events include the “freedom convoy” protests, but also the 2014 shootings that led to the death of Corporal Nathan Cirillo at the National War Memorial.

The government should also establish “clear instructions” on the mandates of law enforcement and security partners, the committee recommends.

The Conservatives challenged the idea that the government should be so involved in security decisions and disagreed with the proposed changes to jurisdiction over Parliament Hill. According to them, the committee wants to go “too far, too fast”.

In their dissenting report, Tory MPs argue that experts should have been allowed to draw up a joint proposal on the details of a security plan.

“We were delighted to learn that there are positive working relationships between the various partners and that the events of recent months have led to an even greater awareness of Parliament’s unique situation as well as a stronger interagency collaboration,” the Tory MPs wrote.

“In our view, the evolving future of parliamentary security should take advantage of and reinforce these dynamics, rather than being unnecessarily disrupted by the imposition of political instructions. Certainly, we heard no convincing arguments from witnesses that politicians should instruct police and security professionals. »

To see in video


source site-44