Debates of Feb. 17th, 1999

The Budget

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, with this budget, the Minister of Finance is perpetuating the dependency on employment insurance.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, this budget confirms the Minister of Finance's continuing dependency on the EI fund. He is using the surplus in the EI fund to fill his coffers and line the pockets of millionaires.

While the minister is paying off his debt on the backs of the unemployed, there is nothing in his budget for those who do not qualify for employment insurance.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. What is the amount of the surplus in the EI fund?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member refers to the budget, he will see that the amount is $4.9 billion.

However, I am amazed that, on the opposition side, they keep pushing a pitiful and simplistic solution as the best way to help the unemployed, and that is to keep them on EI as much and as long as possible.

We on this side want to give the unemployed hope, a global strategy that will enable them to join the workforce. Unlike members on the other side, we want to give them hope, not dependency.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of Indian affairs is obviously uncomfortable with her position on the Caldwell Indian Band, so uncomfortable that she has declared a stay in the proceedings on the Caldwell reserve.

Yesterday she refused to answer the question of whether Chief Larry Johnson was a duly elected chief for that band and whether he has stood for election and is legally the leader of the Caldwell band as defined under the Indian Act.

Today the minister can set the record straight. Is Chief Johnson a duly elected chief for the Caldwell Indian reserve within the last two years?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, Chief Johnson was duly elected according to the custom election code of the first nations.

Privilege

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to invoke your judgment and that of those in the House on a matter that I believe infringed on my privilege as a member of parliament and impeded me in dutifully carrying out and fulfilling my obligations as an elected representative of this parliament.

Today, February 17, 1999, members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada set up picket lines at strategic locations of entry to the region of Parliament Hill and at entrances to specific buildings within the Parliament Hill precincts, including and not limited to the Langevin Block, the West Block road entrance, the East Block entrance, and the pedestrian and road access entrances to the Wellington Building.

These pickets, I hereby submit, did impede my responsibility as a member of parliament and my ability to carry out my obligations as a member of parliament in a timely and prescribed fashion.

The particular picket line that impeded my ability to carry out the said function and which contravened my privilege as a member of parliament was located at the west gates of the West Block where the shuttle buses that carry parliamentarians had to be rerouted to other access entrances far out of the normal routing on Parliament Hill. Not only this, but in my individual case no bus was prepared to run the gauntlet. Thus I had to make my way to conduct my affairs as a parliamentarian by other means.

I submit this is a violation of my privileges and a contravention of the centuries old precedent and parliamentary order and function.

I further submit that other parliamentarians were denied access to the entrance of their parliamentary office buildings in the early hours of this picketing, thus contravening in direct personal fashion the conduct of their affairs and the affairs of their staff.

There is direct and compelling reference to my question of privilege in both Erskine May and Beauchesne's. I hereby submit, Mr. Speaker, these references for your learned judgment and decision.

Beauchesne's fifth edition states that by definition:

Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies and individuals.

Beauchesne's states at citation 16:

The privileges of Parliament are rights which are “absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers”. They are enjoyed by individual Members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members; and by each House for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity.

I submit the events of the pickets in question were in direct violation of this right and privilege, exhibited a contempt for the functions of parliamentarians, and were a direct attack on the dignity of this institution.

I also submit my capacity as a member elected to serve my constituents was diminished by these pickets similar to the references as expressed in citation 18 of Beauchesne's.

Erskine May has reference to the access of parliamentarians to carry out their functions and what would contravene and violate this privilege. I submit the following reference. Under “Access to the Houses of Parliament” Erskine May states that to facilitate the attendance of members without interruption, both Houses, at the beginning of each session, give directions in the sessional orders that during the session of parliament the streets leading to the Houses of Parliament be free and open, and that no obstruction shall be permitted to hinder the passage thereto of the lords or members.

I again submit that the pickets denying my ease of access to parliament are an affront to the centuries old parliamentary privilege as defined by Erskine May.

The president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Mr. Daryl Bean, in full knowledge of these pickets did with contempt violate my privileges and the privileges of others as members of parliament and did with full knowledge contravene the rules of this Chamber and the dignity of this institution. I submit that through the leadership of this union Mr. Bean be held in contempt of this parliament and in contempt of the privileges of individual members and be hereby censured for these actions carried out by his membership.

Mr. Speaker, if you find I have a question of privilege, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[The Speaker]

Before I hear the hon. House leader for the government, may I ask the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt if his question of privilege is the same as that of the member who just spoke.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Yes, it is, Mr. Speaker, so my comments would be very brief.

[The Speaker]

I will hear you. I now direct myself to the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain. Is your question of privilege the same as that of the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast?

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would admit that it is similar but there are some differences in my case.

[The Speaker]

Why I am asking you is that I am going to invite you to speak successively. Does the question of privilege of the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville coincide with this one?

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, yes. I just wanted to give a personal illustration.

[The Speaker]

Here is what we will do. I will hear the three members I have just questioned and then I will hear the government House leader.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this morning a mob of hooligans used physical violence and intimidation to stop me from gaining access to my office. While I do not believe the thugs who assaulted me today are indicative of all members in that union, it is imperative for you to act accordingly to ensure that this type of cowardly behaviour does not occur again.

Mr. Speaker, should you find this to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I join briefly with my colleagues on this particular point. I arrived at my office around 7 o'clock this morning and was told I would not be able to enter the office. I went and had a coffee and then came back and explained to them. At that time I was allowed with a security guard to go to the office.

In the function of carrying out my duties, this is the first time in my life I have ever been inhibited or shamed in trying to get to my place of work. My office was four hours without contact with my constituency. I could not carry out my duties because my staff was not allowed to be in my office. As the hon. member mentioned, that is a violation of the rules and precedents of the House.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to end this with a brief quotation from Joseph Maingot. I cannot serve my constituents without my staff and restricting my staff interferes with my work as an MP. My staff are an extension of me.

My constituents and the media tried to contact me for approximately four hours this morning. They could not get through. It was one of the busiest days we have had in our office today, right after the budget as members can imagine. The picketers would not allow my staff to enter. I tried personally to get them. I explained to them what this was all about and how it was important to me. I could not get my staff through. I would be shocked if on one of the busiest days, Mr. Speaker, you did not feel that this was an infringement of my privileges.

I would like to read a quotation from Joseph Maingot's

Parliamentary Privilege in Canada

, second edition, chapter 2, page 13:

If someone improperly interferes with the parliamentary work of a member of parliament—i.e. any of the member's activities that have a connection with a proceeding in parliament—in such a case that is a matter involving parliamentary privilege. An offence against the authority of the House constitutes contempt.

This would clearly include restricting staff to do its work for a member of parliament.

Again, I was unable to go about my work because my staff was denied access to my office. Not allowing my staff to accompany me is a very serious infringement on my privileges.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, first let me say how I think these conditions are unfortunate and even unacceptable.

I became aware of the picket around 6.45 a.m. At that time I alerted the House authorities of what I believed was a condition that could cause difficulties and possible questions of privilege from members of parliament.

I do not think there is any doubt that if a member of parliament was assaulted that is unacceptable and is a breach of our privileges, not only the member in question but every one of us. That is the first proposition.

The second is on the issue of the picket itself. The picket, provided it is not on the grounds of Parliament Hill and provided it is done for information purposes and it respects the law, I think is legal. It has to respect the law in order to do so.

The allegations we have heard from many hon. members is that it was not done in a proper way. That is unacceptable as well.

The third proposition brought to us by another hon. member is that the president of the union maybe in contempt of parliament. I do not know if the Chair would want to rule immediately on that third proposition. I think it should be investigated before the Chair rules on it. I do not know whether the chair of the union personally not only authorized the picket in question but authorized it to be conducted in a manner which may have been illegal. That proposition is a little different from the others.

If I can get back to the original proposition, that members of parliament were assaulted, the 1751 Mason issue outlined in Erskine May makes it very clear that it is unacceptable even for a police officer to stop someone from attending to his duties in parliament. If it is not appropriate for someone who is a police officer to stop us from coming here, it is equally unacceptable for anyone else to try to do it.

I invite the Chair when examining the situation, because it is equally germane to this issue although slightly different, to determine whether the privileges that extend to members of parliament in our attendance here also extend either to the staff of members of parliament or even to the staff of Mr. Speaker. I was also approached earlier this day by a staff member of Mr. Speaker, someone who works for the Commons but not for a member of parliament, who informed me he had considerable difficulty in reaching his place of work to do a very essential task for us in this Chamber. So the Chair, no doubt, would want to look at that as well.

For these reasons, I would ask that the Chair not rule immediately and investigate all the points I have raised, and the come back to the House in order to see whether there is a prima facie case of privilege on all these points. But I am already convinced there is at least such a prima facie case in some of the points that have been raised, in particular the one involving molestation of a member.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to report to you what happened to me this morning. I have an office in the Wellington Building as well. When I arrived this morning there was of course a picket line outside the door. I spoke to the picket captain and he said that if I want I can go into the building, they were not inhibiting members of parliament whatsoever in terms of going into the building.

I declined of course to cross the picket line and chatted some more with them. He once again repeated the offer that I could proceed into the building if I wished and once again I declined.

A similar thing happened to many other colleagues of mine, including my colleague from Beauséjour—Petitcodiac. Once again she was made the offer to enter the building if she wanted to in a very polite way. We had no problems whatsoever with the people who were picketing. They were very polite to us and offered access to the building if we wanted to as members of parliament. I think Mr. Speaker should know that while deliberating on the issue.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to lend my voice because I too entered the press club today to do a taping. I spoke to each and every person. They were CBC strikers. However, I had the same experience of no trouble at all. I spoke to them. I in no way mean to say that the Reform members' stories are not how they found them.

But I do think it is fair to say that I did not have any trouble at all. I walked past the Wellington Building. I spoke to all the picketers. In fact, I got in the line and followed them, sort of. I then went in and said goodbye.

I am the parliamentary secretary to labour, so maybe that was okay, I do not know. But I did not have any trouble.

[The Speaker]

What the hon. member has brought up is very serious for us in the House. I am going to make one ruling now and reserve on the other three.

The hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt has said in this House that he was assaulted or touched or pushed. I do not want to put words in the hon. member's mouth, but if that is precise, I would like the hon. member to indicate that to me now.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, all three of those are correct. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin witnessed it.

[The Speaker]

I find a prima facie case of contempt and I will refer that to the appropriate committee.

I will take the advice of the government House leader because I want to look into what the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast has said.

I also want to consider what the member for Yorkton—Melville has said because he is expanding this notion. I also want to consider what has been said by the member for Brandon—Souris.

You have the gist of what I want to do. I will reserve on three of the allegations that were brought forth.

I now invite the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt to move his motion.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker I would move that the matter of denying members of parliament and their staff access to Parliament Hill and the parliamentary buildings by the public service union on Wednesday, February 17, 1999 be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and for the purposes of dealing with similar action by PSAC demonstrators in the immediate future, the Speaker instruct security personnel to take the appropriate action necessary to ensure that members of parliament and their staff have unimpeded access to parliamentary offices at all times.