I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on December 6 by the member for Thornhill concerning access to the parliamentary precinct.
In her intervention, the member alleged that a protest in the lobby of the Confederation Building on the morning of Tuesday, December 3 impeded her ability to access her parliamentary office and, more broadly, obstructed parliamentary business. She stated that, in some other instances, meetings had to be cancelled. Citing procedural authorities, previous rulings and committee reports on past incidents regarding access to the precinct, the member noted that such matters typically constitute prima facie breaches of privilege.
The member further argued that media reports on December 5 suggested that the members for Edmonton Strathcona, Hamilton Centre and Winnipeg Centre joined the protesters in the lobby of the building and were thereby complicit in preventing other members from accessing their offices. She suggested that this was an intentional obstruction of Parliament and could constitute contempt.
Other members intervened to provide their accounts of what transpired that morning, including the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, who stated that her safety and her staff’s safety were jeopardized.
For their part, the members for Edmonton Strathcona, Hamilton Centre and Winnipeg Centre disputed the claims that they were involved in the organization of the protest. The member for New Westminster—Burnaby further noted that the question of privilege was raised several days after the events took place and therefore not at the earliest opportunity.
The Chair must first clearly state that the safety and security of members, staff and other visitors is always taken very seriously. Nobody should feel unsafe anywhere within the parliamentary precinct.
Upon hearing the concerns raised by the member for Thornhill, I immediately inquired with the Sergeant-at-Arms and the Parliamentary Protective Service, known as PPS, to ascertain the circumstances of the protest. Their account of events shows that, throughout the protest, the safety of individuals, including members, and the security of the precinct was never compromised. Furthermore, the appropriate level of resources, which were nonetheless significant, was deployed and the situation was resolved in a timely and peaceful manner.
In her submission, the member for Thornhill noted that media reports in the days following the incident led her to raise her question of privilege when she did, as they demonstrated an organized attempt to obstruct the business of Parliament. However, the Chair's view is that any obstruction to members, their staff and guests would have been apparent in the moment, regardless of what media reports would subsequently reveal. As a result, in raising her question on December 6, when the incident occurred on the morning of December 3, the Chair is not satisfied that the member raised the matter at the earliest opportunity. Nevertheless, the Chair still wishes to address this question of privilege by assessing the merits of the matter.
In the case before us, the Chair is being asked to determine if the events of December 3 impeded members in the discharge of their parliamentary duties. As stated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 108:
Over the years, Members have regularly brought to the attention of the House instances which they believed were attempts to obstruct, impede, interfere, intimidate or molest them, their staff or individuals who had some business with them or the House.
It further states on the same page:
Speakers have consistently upheld the right of the House to the services of its Members free from intimidation, obstruction and interference.
The incident was disruptive and stressful. It was indeed regrettable, for instance, that one member's guest cancelled his visit because of security concerns. It is nonetheless important to the Chair to reassure members that PPS followed the necessary protocols for addressing these types of situations. The PPS officers prioritize safety for all while allowing members to enter the building.
During the protest in the main entrance and lobby of the Confederation Building, members, staff and business visitors were redirected to enter the building through an alternate entrance while PPS officers dealt with the protest inside the building. Where warranted, PPS officers escorted members and their visitors to a secondary and secure door into the building.
In her submission, the member for Thornhill referred to previous cases where members were impeded in some way. Several examples involved a variety of events, such as protests or police security cordons that resulted in delays for members trying to access the precinct or the Chamber. The Chair would like to point out that breaches of privilege generally involved members being impeded in their access to a proceeding of the House or its committees. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states at page 109:
In order to find a prima facie breach of privilege, the Speaker must be satisfied that there is evidence to support the Member’s claim that he or she has been impeded in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions and that the matter is directly related to a proceeding of Parliament.
In a ruling on a similar matter involving a sit-in in a minister’s office, coincidentally also in the Confederation Building, Speaker Milliken stated on March 25, 2011, at page 9246 of the Debates:
...in this particular case...there is little evidence to suggest that the staff of the minister were obstructed in the fulfillment of their duties.... In view of the very high threshold required in adjudicating such situations, in this circumstance the Chair cannot find that a prima facie question of privilege has arisen in this matter.
In the current case, while it was indeed disruptive, the Chair cannot conclude that members were prevented from discharging their parliamentary duties as concerns parliamentary proceedings. Accordingly, based on this high threshold, the Chair does not find the matter constitutes a prima facie question of privilege.
The Chair also wishes to address the allegations that members were involved in or assisted in organizing the protest. All three members named, while expressing sympathy for the cause of the cause of the protesters, categorically denied being involved in organizing the protest, stating that their interactions with the demonstrators were brief and unplanned. As is the custom of this place, the Chair takes members at their word.
That said, I would encourage all members to think twice before doing anything that could be construed as supporting a demonstration inside one of our parliamentary office buildings. While the grounds outside are open to the public and may be used for protests within certain guidelines, the buildings themselves are not public spaces and therefore, for obvious reasons, should not be used for this purpose. It is a very basic matter of security. While some members may be sympathetic to a cause and feel that a protest poses no risk to them, they should recognize that their colleagues may not feel the same way, and if the shoe were on the other foot with another cause in the future, their reaction might be very different.
I thank all members for their attention.
