Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of Members

February 18, 1999

Debates, p. 12134

On February 17, 1999, the Speaker heard questions of privilege raised by John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast), Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt), Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain) and Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville) concerning picket lines set up by members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada blocking access to Parliament Hill and its buildings. The members argued that they and their staff were denied access to their offices and considered this to be a breach of their privileges and an impediment to their work as members of Parliament. Mr. Pankiw added that, in his case, he was assaulted when trying to reach his office. After the intervention of other members, the Speaker declared that he found a prima facie case of contempt in the case of molestation of Mr. Pankiw and invited him to move a motion so that the question could be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The motion was moved and agreed to. The Speaker reserved his decision on the other cases.^[1]

On February 18, 1999, the Speaker delivered his ruling on the questions of privilege. The Speaker reminded the House that, in the case of Mr. Pankiw, a ruling had previously been made and the motion moved and adopted. In reference to the other cases concerning access to the buildings, the Speaker ruled that they constituted a prima facie case of contempt of the House and invited Mr. Reynolds to move a motion that the question be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for consideration. The motion was moved and adopted.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: On Wednesday, February 17, the honourable member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast raised a question of privilege concerning picket lines established at strategic locations around Parliament Hill and at entrances to specific buildings within the precincts.

The member alleged that these pickets impeded him as a member of Parliament because they prevented him from carrying out his obligations in a timely fashion.

Two other members, the honourable member for Saskatoon—Humboldt and the honourable member for Souris—Moose Mountain, raised questions of privilege relating to the effect of these same picket lines on them and their work. The honourable member for Yorkton—Melville rose to support those interventions.

I wish to thank all the honourable members who helped me regarding this issue, including the leader of the government in the House, the honourable member for Regina—Qu’Appelle, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour.

Before proceeding, let me remind the House that one of these questions of privilege has already been disposed of, namely the allegation made by the honourable member for Saskatoon—Humboldt that, in his words, a mob of hooligans used physical violence and intimidation to prevent him from gaining access to his office in one of the picketed buildings.

Because of the seriousness of the allegation I ruled immediately that there was in that case a prima facie question of privilege.

The member moved the appropriate motion which the House adopted without debate and so the matter of the alleged molestation of the honourable member for Saskatoon—Humboldt now stands referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

I carefully reviewed what honourable members said when they informed the House of their very justified fear about the events that occurred yesterday morning, and I am now prepared to make a ruling on the other incidents, which were reported to me and which I took under advisement.

One honourable member alleges that he was impeded from fulfilling his responsibilities as a member because at least initially he was unable to enter his building while other honourable members have argued that their privileges were breached because the strikers interfered with the usual operations of their offices and staff.

Mindful of the role of the Speaker as the guardian of the rights of members, I have reviewed the facts presented yesterday regarding impeded access to the parliamentary precincts. I have been persuaded by the interventions made by the honourable member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, the honourable member for Souris—Moose Mountain and the honourable member for Yorkton—Melville and have decided that these concerns are sufficiently serious for me to act.

The Chair therefore rules that the incident of February 17, 1999, impeding access to the parliamentary precincts, constitute a prima facie case of contempt of the House. I invite the honourable member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Cost to move the appropriate motion.

The matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. On April 14, 1999, the committee presented its 66th report. The report recommended better consultation and coordination between the House of Commons and outside police; future consolidation of all members’ offices and committee rooms on the north side of Wellington Street; and better information and education of the public and House employees about the rights of members to unimpeded access to Parliament and parliamentary buildings. The committee concluded that there was no deliberate intention on the part of the strikers to contravene parliamentary privilege and any contempt was technical and unintended. The report was never concurred in.^[2]

P0115-e

36-1

1999-02-18