Madam Speaker, I have spoken for just a couple of moments to give members context, and I will not be silenced by that member about the personal safety of members of the House and his toxic masculinity in here, the thing he accuses others of doing. I am going to continue on this context because it is important. It is not only my privilege that is breached, but it is everybody who has an office in the Confederation building and those who try to access the parliamentary precinct. I have lots of examples of where this has been heard in the House and in committee.
On Wednesday evening, I understand, the Western Standard published an insightful piece on the protest. This is where the member should be ashamed of himself. The organization that protested was supported, and the support was provided by New Democrats. The article opens as follows:
A group of approximately 130 Jewish Canadians “took over” Parliament Hill's Confederation Building Tuesday morning in support of Palestine, demanding an arms embargo against Israel.
Three New Democrat MPs, [the member for Edmonton Strathcona, the member for Hamilton Centre and the member for Winnipeg Centre] joined the 100 protestors occupying the lobby of the building, where many members of parliament have offices, while about 30 others stayed outside.
The article quotes, later, a lady named Mrs. Small:
“Three MPs came down,” said Small, naming the three NDP MPs.
“[The member for Winnipeg Centre ] said that she was so proud to be there.... I'm not trying to speak on her behalf, but I was very touched by that.”
These subsequent interviews, and these things we have read in the news, came to light later, since the events of Tuesday morning, which I submit also formed the basis of a breach of privilege and equally form the basis of the timeliness necessary in bringing this question of privilege forward.
My own parliamentary offices are in that building. In fact, they are the first door on the right when walking into that building. It was an effort to paralyze the workings of Parliament and it was essentially directed at anybody in that building. It is hard to think it was not directed at members right there on the first floor, with the protesters' true motivations coming to light, not to mention that they were seemingly aided by New Democrat MPs, which is what has compelled me to rise on this question of privilege.
Our own members, members of the House of Commons, were impeding the work of parliamentarians: to get into their offices, to have meetings in their offices, to have meetings cancelled in their offices. Those who came to the front door would not be able to even walk through the front door of Parliament Hill. That is why I am raising this point.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 107, “In order to fulfill their parliamentary duties, Members should be able to go about their parliamentary business undisturbed.... Speakers have consistently upheld the right of the House to the services of its Members free from intimidation, obstruction and interference.”
Meanwhile, Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, comments on page 176, “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.”
Indeed, Bosc and Gagnon, at page 86, remind us that “the denial of access of Members to the Parliamentary Precinct has been found to constitute contempt of the House on several occasions.”
It might be helpful to pause here and recall the definition of the parliamentary precinct, which this very much falls within: It is the offices of members of Parliament. On page 163 of Maingot, the parliamentary precinct is endorsed:
In the parliamentary sense, the precincts are the premises that the House of Commons and the Senate occupy from time to time for their corporate purposes. It includes those premises where each House, through its Speaker, exercises physical control to enable the Members to perform their parliamentary work without obstruction or interference.
That includes the Confederation building, where access was denied, or meant to be denied, on Tuesday morning and then with subsequent media reports coming out about who was involved in those protests.
It is the intention of the NDP-organized protesters, which was revealed in those media interviews, that is critical. At page 60, Bosc and Gagnon explain:
Any conduct which offends the authority or dignity of the House, even though no breach of any specific privilege may have been committed, is referred to as a contempt of the House. Contempt may be an act or an omission. It does not have to actually obstruct or impede the House or a Member; it merely has to have the tendency to produce such results.
I find that piece very important. New Democrats put 100 people in the building at an entryway. I can guarantee members they did that because they had the intention to obstruct the free passage of anyone looking to get in, members of Parliament or those they were conducting business with.
Turning back to the prohibition on obstructing and impeding members of Parliament on the Hill, Bosc and Gagnon expand on this principle at page 110:
In circumstances where Members claim to be physically obstructed, impeded, interfered with or intimidated in the performance of their parliamentary functions, the Speaker is apt to find that a prima facie breach of privilege has occurred.
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 or molestation have been found to be prima facie cases of privilege.
From there, two further pages of the book are dedicated to summarizing the prima facie cases of privilege, which Speakers have found over the past four decades related to members' access being fettered by protests, strikes and inflexible security arrangements.
Given that typically those clear-cut facts of each case are an equally clear principle, Speakers' rulings on questions of privilege of this nature have typically been prompt and concise. Several reports from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that followed are richer in content and help us understand the issue at hand. I believe it would be useful to review briefly some of those principles.
In reporting to the House on two questions of privilege arising from the federal public service strike, the procedure and House affairs committee explained at paragraph 15 in its 66th report presented in April 1999:
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, and cannot be prevented from entering the chamber or a committee room for a parliamentary proceeding. This privilege can be traced 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 of Commons.
From the same committee, following a different question of privilege, the 21st report presented in the House in December 2004 reads:
The denial of access to Members of the House – even if temporary – is unacceptable, and constitutes a contempt of the House. Members must not be impeded or interfered with while on their way to the Chamber, or when going about their parliamentary business. To permit this would interfere with the operation of the House of Commons, and undermine the pre-eminent right of the House to the service of its Members.
The report was concurred in, in the House, on May 17, 2005.
The procedure and House affairs committee later wrote, this time in its 26th report from May 2012:
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....
Parliament Hill, and most notably Centre Block and the Peace Tower, represent for Canadians the physical embodiment of our parliamentary democracy. As such, the grounds of Parliament Hill have become the preferred site for individuals and groups for peaceful gatherings and manifestations. The Canadian values and culture, as embodied notably by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms encourage, rather than deter, such an exercise of the fundamental rights of expression and association. The symbolic significance of Parliament Hill has, however, made it a potential target for those with malicious and illegal intentions, and the security posture on Parliament Hill must be adjusted to meet these threats.
We will recall The Globe and Mail's comment about Madam Wasser that I quoted earlier, who “said in an interview that the Confederation Building was chosen for the protest because it's a building where many parliamentarians conduct their business and protesters wanted to bring business as usual on Parliament Hill to a halt.”
Going back to the 2012 report of the committee, it restated the obligations and expectations of access to Parliament Hill, including the observation, “First, Members of the House of Commons should not, in any case, be denied or delayed access to the Hill and the precinct”. That is exactly what happened on Tuesday morning.