Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege arising from some very disturbing events that occurred just outside this place over the weekend.
On Saturday, the Parliamentary Protective Service, which you are responsible for and provide policy direction to, imposed an ideological test for entry onto the grounds of Parliament Hill. According to a video posted online, a visitor is seen being denied access because he was “not a supporter of Palestine” and does “not recognize Palestine as a state”. The visitor, of course, was denied access to Parliament Hill for the sole reason that he did not hold a political opinion considered acceptable to whoever approved this requirement for entry. To my knowledge, that is the first time that access to Parliament has been subjected to a screening of political points of view, at least documented as such.
Parliament is the beating heart of Canadian democracy. It is where Canadians often come to exercise one of the most cherished constitutional rights guaranteed to them under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and freedom of expression. Therefore, to cherry-pick that point of view, as expressed on Parliament Hill, is simply not consistent with Canadian values. It should be made clear that this is in no way directed at the officer, but a question on the policy direction that you, the Speaker, are responsible for.
It should also be made clear that the very fact that anyone cannot access Parliament Hill because of an opinion they hold, or worse that they cannot be trusted to be in the same place as someone who holds an entirely different opinion, is a stain on the state of our country and demonstrates the divisiveness that has been allowed to fester here. This is a country that has seen hate crimes rise 250% since 2015. It is a country that has seen lawlessness and the mob rule our streets. If two groups of people who have opposing views cannot enter at the same time to express those views in one place, what has become of this country?
Conservatives believe that Parliament Hill must be safe and secure while remaining open and accessible to all, including those who are peacefully protesting. All points of view from all Canadians should be heard. That is their constitutional right, regardless of whether those opinions are politically fashionable among the elites.
The litmus test of recognizing a Palestinian state as the key to enter is, in fact, also the position of the Government of Canada and many Canadian allies. I am not sure what that was all about.
Had Conservative members of Parliament sought to access the House of Commons, our place of work, on Saturday, we would have been denied access because we would not or could not have satisfied that ideological test, even though members are free to access the parliamentary precinct. That is a well-established privilege of Parliament.
The House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 107, explains, “In order to fulfill their parliamentary duties, Members should be able to go about their parliamentary business undisturbed.”
Continuing at page 110, Bosc and Gagnon write:
Incidents involving physical obstruction—such as traffic barriers, security cordons and union picket lines either impeding Members’ access to the Parliamentary Precinct or blocking their free movement within the precinct—as well as occurrences of physical assault...have been found to be prima facie cases of privilege.
This is also explained in paragraph 15 of the 66th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, tabled April 1999, which states:
One of the privileges of Members of the House of Commons is a right of unimpeded access to Parliament and the parliamentary precincts. Members are entitled to go about their parliamentary business undisturbed.... This privilege dates...back to at least the early eighteenth century, and is part of the heritage of all legislative bodies that trace their origins to the British parliamentary tradition. It is based on the pre-eminent right of the House to the attendance and service of its Members. Any obstruction of Members constitutes a breach of privilege and a contempt of the House....
The point was repeated in the same committee's 26th report, tabled in May 2012, which states, “As part of the parliamentary privilege, Members of the House of Commons have the right of unimpeded and unfettered access to the parliamentary precincts, and are entitled to go about their parliamentary duties and functions undisturbed and without any form of interference.”
Joseph Maingot makes the simple point, in his Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, at page 176, that “No impediment should be placed on the Member in going about his parliamentary business, whether in the House, on his way to the House, or while on his way home.” Further down on the same page, he wrote, “Since Parliament Hill has always been a public place, restricting the movement of the general public on the grounds would probably be considered excessive.” To punctuate that point, he added footnote 47, which reads, “There was little if any restriction on the grounds of Parliament Hill even during the 1970 October Crisis.”
Shortly following Pierre Trudeau's invocation of the War Measures Act, the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization recommended in its second report, presented to the House in March 1971:
Your Committee believes that the main problem in connection with security in Parliament is to strike a reasonable balance between the importance of allowing the public ready access to the House of Commons on the one hand and the necessity of preserving the security of the House on the other. Your Committee was governed at all times by the belief that Parliament should not be isolated from the people as a result of exaggerated security measures and that it is important in a democratic society that members of Parliament should continue to have direct communication with the public. Consequently your Committee has concluded that whatever security measures are provided...must be reasonable and consistent with the right of the public to come to Parliament.... It is not easy to reconcile these two imperatives but your Committee feels that the balance should always be in favour of permitting the public reasonable and proper access to Parliament...without intruding in any obvious way on the undoubted rights of citizens to approach their Parliament.
That sounds like common sense to me. Canadians, who elect us, have a right to come to Parliament and make their voices heard, yet it seems they have been chucked out the window in favour of the shocking news that ideological purity tests are now needed to access Parliament Hill, which is a very high impediment being imposed. Conservative MPs, even some Liberal MPs and many Canadians would fail to pass these ideological tests. Blocking politicians, especially opposition politicians, from accessing the legislature to which they were elected to plainly represent their constituents is undemocratic and unCanadian. It is the sort of thing that dictatorships do.
To be sure, I am not going to lay any blame on the constable who was seen in the video. Indeed, I do not hold any single frontline member of this service responsible. They would have simply been following directions decided much higher up. Conjuring up political ideological tests for accessing Parliament is not something we would expect any single constable to have simply freelanced, so it certainly comes from somewhere.
Subsection 79.52(2) of the Parliament of Canada Act explains:
The Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons are, as the custodians of the powers, privileges, rights and immunities of their respective Houses and of the members of those Houses, responsible for the Service.
You, Mr. Speaker, are responsible for that service. Subsection 79.54(2) of the same act adds:
The Director shall lead the integrated security operations throughout the parliamentary precinct and Parliament Hill under the joint general policy direction of the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons.
Beyond the matter of any policy directions that you may or may not have given, Mr. Speaker, it is important to understand that section 79.55 of the act vests responsibility of “physical security services throughout the parliamentary precinct and Parliament Hill”, delivered by the PPS, in the RCMP. In fact, the director of the PPS is required by subsection 79.56(2) of the act to be a member of the RCMP. Subsection 5(1) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act makes quite clear that the Liberal cabinet appoints the RCMP's top boss, the commissioner, “who, under the direction of the Minister, has the control and management of the Force and all matters connected with the Force.”
At the end of the day, this boils down to one essential question: Was the direction to require the Parliamentary Protective Service to apply a political litmus test to anyone seeking access to Parliament Hill this past weekend a general policy direction that you approved, Mr. Speaker, or was it the direction of the Minister of Public Safety in relation to his control of the RCMP, which is responsible for physical security on the Hill? No matter how we cut it or which Liberal made the decision, ideological tests for political points of view are shocking and unacceptable and are an impediment to members of Parliament, who must have free and ready access to the parliamentary precinct at all times, not to mention all Canadians, who should be able to come to the Hill at all times for all issues.
Should you agree that this is a prima facie case of privilege, I intend to move a motion to refer this matter to the procedure and House affairs committee for investigation. Allowing this issue to be studied in committee would allow key questions to be answered. Who gave the directive? Was it you, Mr. Speaker, or was it the Minister of Public Safety who approved this ideological test for Parliament Hill access? Have ideological tests been approved for Hill access before this time?
These are very important issues and concerns, and Parliament stands for free speech in its very name. The grounds that surround our building ought to stand equally for free speech. They should not be a safe speech bubble for some speech or, even worse, for acceptable speech, nor should they be reserved only for opinions that are shared by the government or elites or are fashionable at the time.