PRHA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 16, 1999

• 1109

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, the order of the day is the orders of reference from the House of Commons dated Wednesday, February 17, 1999 and Thursday, February 18, 1999 in relation to the matter of the molestation of Mr. Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt) and in relation to picket lines established to impede access to the precincts of Parliament.

Our witnesses today are our colleagues, Jim Pankiw, MP for Saskatoon—Humboldt, and John Reynolds, MP for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast.

We welcome you both here. As I've mentioned, if we could come to this proceeding in a moment, I do have some business.

• 1110

Colleagues, I'd like to go over our plans, particularly for this week, and then we'll deal with the matter of how we proceed today. I want to try to imprint on your minds that tomorrow we have two meetings, and on Thursday, at our regular time, we have one meeting. The first meeting tomorrow, at 12.15 p.m. in this room, is the continuation of these proceedings. The representatives of PSAC will appear before us.

I know it's difficult. We discussed this in the steering committee. It's important that there be a certain momentum in this matter and that there is seen to be fairness in this matter, so we agreed we would meet tomorrow. I know it's caucus morning, but we'll meet at 12.15 p.m. tomorrow, and lunch will be provided.

Then our second meeting tomorrow, also in this room, is at 4 o'clock. In that case, we meet with the delegation from the House of Commons in Britain, who are here discussing various parliamentary matters. We agreed we were going to meet with them. At that session—I would stress this for some of our members—we will be serving what has been described in English as delectables and we will be serving good Ontario wine. Nevertheless, although it's a social occasion, it's a serious time for us to exchange our experience with our colleagues from Britain.

My thought at the moment is that we will be in this room, the refreshments will be served, and at some point we will sit around the tables and around the room, because of the necessity for simultaneous translation. My thought is that we will sit with our British colleagues interspersed among us in some way, and us interspersed. It's not, as I see it, a formal committee meeting, but on the other hand, we have to make sure they have access to the simultaneous translation in some reasonably informal way.

If there's an overflow, we'll have some extra seats at the tables, and the members of their delegation will sit in locations where they have simultaneous translation. I hope you will help them and their staff with that so that they can be involved in the discussion we will have.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Will we help them in French?

The Chair: You can help in English or French.

[Translation]

You are perfectly bilingual, Stéphane, just as I am.

An Hon. Member: As we are!

[English]

The Chair: Then on Thursday, at the regular time here, we'll continue with these proceedings. We have in the Sergeant-at-Arms, and we'll be dealing with that aspect of the matter before us. All of that is important.

The last thing with regard to the meeting at 4 o'clock tomorrow is that I would ask each of the parties if they would consider inviting one or two colleagues—perhaps colleagues who are associate members here, colleagues who have been here before, or colleagues who have a particular interest in Parliament—in order that we have a reasonable number of MPs here.

Stéphane, I see your question, but it's in case we are thin with our own members, because it's a very busy day tomorrow. So if you have one or two colleagues who would like to come, feel free to invite them for the delectables.

Next week we will be considering what we're doing with this matter. We'll decide that on Thursday and consider how we handle it the following week.

Our other ticking matter is the report on leaking reports from committees. That is in a very preliminary stage at the moment. We're in a sort of design stage. We can come back to that and see what we might do with it next week.

We have already dealt with the main estimates for the House of Commons. We were the first committee to deal with main estimates, which is the way it should be. We set an example for the other committees. At the moment it looks as though we will be considering the main estimates of Elections Canada on 20 April.

The last thing I have here is very important. It's on your agenda, and I'm hoping Mr. Bergeron will move it. It's a motion for food for the working meeting on Wednesday, March 17, and I've been advised that the food concerned is pizza. So would Mr. Bergeron consider moving the motion before us?

Would you care to read that out, Stéphane?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I wouldn't want to monopolize all the motions concerning food. So I'll let one or more of my colleagues take the floor.

[English]

The Chair: Would someone care to move the motion on food?

• 1115

Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): I'll move it. I'm only concerned that you have to order it this early to get it for March 17. It might be a little cold by that time.

The Chair: As it's pizza, perhaps it's more fitting that it's Joe Fontana who moves it.

Joe, would you move this?

Mr. Joe Fontana: Sure.

The Chair: To our guests, we have a long, ongoing thing about food here.

It's moved by Joe Fontana that the clerk, in consultation with the chair, be authorized to order food for a working meeting to be held Wednesday, March 17, 1999.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: My suggestion today is that Jim Pankiw and John Reynolds appear together and that Jim Pankiw speak first, because that was the first order of reference we received. We're in the witnesses' hands as to how long they will take. My suggestion then is that we proceed to ask them questions they might both answer, or questions could be directed to one of them individually.

My reason for doing this is that until this point, in all our briefings, we have in fact been dealing with both of these orders of reference together. I therefore thought it was appropriate to proceed in this fashion.

Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That's fine.

[English]

The Chair: Stéphane agrees.

Jim and John, we welcome you to this committee. I have sent you the transcripts of our previous meetings. We're in your hands.

Jim, we'd be grateful for your remarks first.

Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Thank you.

I don't have any formal presentation or formal remarks to make. As you know, there was an incident in which there was a blockade of parliamentary buildings and intimidation and physical interference of members of Parliament trying to enter the parliamentary buildings. The Speaker has ruled that that constitutes a prima facie case of privilege, so I think our responsibility as parliamentarians is to explore this and determine what measures can or should be taken or implemented to ensure that this type of thing doesn't happen in the future.

That basically is all I have to say as a preliminary statement.

The Chair: John Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wondered where our food was, after hearing your first five minutes. I thought we'd be served some food to start.

I took it very seriously when I got up in the House to move a question of privilege. As you know, I've been a Speaker myself before, and I don't like to do that unless I think there's an issue.

I'll describe briefly what happened to me. In the morning, when I arrived at work, it was about 7.40. I had an eight o'clock meeting in the Centre Block. I had no problem getting access to the Confederation Building, but when I went downstairs to get on the bus—and I normally just dress like this when I'm taking the bus from there to here—I was told by the driver that he couldn't take me up to the top because of the picket lines. I didn't argue with him; it's not his responsibility. I just went up and put on my coat, scarf, hat, and boots and trudged up the hill in the freezing rain. If you remember what that morning was like, it was a very miserable morning. Because of that, I ended up getting to my meeting 15 or 20 minutes late.

It could have been a lot more serious than that, and that was the reason I brought up the question of privilege. I have no problem with unions and their picketing and strikes. I've run a business that was unionized and worked with unions and so forth, but on this issue....

I just want to make one reference to May on access to the Houses of Parliament. It says:

To facilitate the attendance of Members without interruption, both Houses, at the commencement of each session, by order, give directions that the commissioner of the police of the metropolis shall keep, during the session of Parliament, the streets leading to the Houses of Parliament free and open, and that no obstruction shall be permitted to hinder the passage thereto of the Lords or Members.

That's about as old a parliamentary law as you're going to get from May, and I think it still should hold today. I would like to see this committee look at taking the precincts of Parliament, wherever they are, and putting a line around them. I have no trouble if they want to picket outside that, as long as they know that members and their staff have access to the precincts.

We're here to do the country's business, and that's why we have to be able to be here. When we're inside these precincts—construction may happen and we may have buildings even further away—we have to make sure members have access. I don't want to see a situation where votes get delayed because of pickets and strikes. That should not be happening at the Parliament of Canada.

That was my only issue in bringing it up. It's time this committee looked at it and worked out something within our own means of what we know we can do. Just tell everyone that's the rule. If you want to picket outside, that's fine, but members and staff, because their job is to run this country—we're the highest court in the land, I hope, still—have a right to access, to get here and do our job.

• 1120

That was my whole issue in bringing it up, and I hope this committee will seriously look at that. The traditions are there and the examples are there for the mother of all parliaments, and other parliaments over the years have made sure members have access.

The Chair: Thank you, John.

Chuck Strahl, Joe Fontana, and then John Solomon.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Thank you, gentlemen, for agreeing to come here.

We're dealing with these two referrals as one, or at least that's what Diane Davidson, legal counsel, suggested we do. But maybe just to get a couple of things on the record, so that I'm clear and we're all clear on this, Jim, I have a couple of questions for you.

John briefly described his problem. What happened to you on that morning that particularly raised your ire? You were in the House going to the Speaker about this early on. Just exactly how did it come about in the morning? What time did you arrive on the scene? What did you see? What happened?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: It was a Wednesday morning, and I arrived in front of the doors to the building where my office is located, the Wellington Building, at 8 a.m., because I had a meeting and some preparation work to do for my caucus meeting, which was scheduled to start at nine. I got out of the cab and there was a blockade of people there. I walked up and said “Excuse me”, and was told I wouldn't be able to enter the building and was physically pushed back. So I felt intimidated and physically interfered with.

Although I was able to gain entrance, my staff wasn't. My morning was very much disrupted and my ability to perform my parliamentary duties was affected. This is a serious enough issue. I don't think we want to set a precedent where things like that are allowed to happen, because long after I'm gone from here as an MP, I don't want to live in a country where my elected representative can be interfered with in that way.

This not only extends to MPs and their staff. What if that morning I was meeting with a constituent who had come here from Saskatoon, 2,000 miles, and was maybe scheduled to be in town for part of the day? That whole thing could have been disrupted. This is a pretty serious matter, in my view. I think the committee should try to implement some type of measure so that this kind of thing can't happen.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I know this isn't your word, because I was in the House when this was referred by the Speaker, but they talked about the “molestation” of the honourable member for Saskatoon—Humboldt. When you were interfered with, to what extent? There wasn't a scuffle—or was there? I'm not sure what there was. What is the “molestation” referring to?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: I would say there was a scuffle. I was told that I wouldn't be able to enter the building and I was physically pushed like this, “You're not going to work today”. I attempted to force my way through because of the reasons I explained: I had things to do, I had duties to perform. Quite frankly, I flew in 2,000 miles, am away from my wife and kids, and I'm here to represent the people who elected me. I'm not about to start wandering the streets wondering what I should do because somebody won't let me in the building.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Did you know it was a PSAC strike going on there that morning?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: No, I did not know what the blockade was about or what the people were demonstrating about. And I think that's a good point. It's irrelevant who they are. I don't care if it's a union, Kurdish demonstrators, protesters demonstrating whatever. We encounter that here all the time, and that's fine. But I've never been interfered with like that, and that shouldn't happen. It doesn't matter who's doing it; it's just that a group of people, whoever they might be, shouldn't be allowed to block or intimidate members of Parliament and our staff, and I would even suggest our constituents, and interfere with our ability to do our work.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: It's been in the papers, of course, a little bit. People have been speculating about this and so on.

Do you have a particular bone to pick with PSAC? Do you think we need to focus on the public service union? Do you have anything in particular with PSAC that you're worried about, or is this a bigger issue than the public service union?

• 1125

Mr. Jim Pankiw: I think you have two questions there. Do I have a bone to pick with PSAC? No. In fact I'm currently corresponding with the minister on behalf of a constituent of mine who is a PSAC member attempting to gain some explanations and understanding of why the government is taking the position they are in relation to his particular circumstances. I'm acting on his behalf. So no, absolutely not.

The reason I didn't myself engage in any comments to the media is because this isn't about a particular union or anything. This is about a group of people blocking access to a parliamentary building. So on the second part of your question, the answer is that it's a much bigger issue than one particular group.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: This is the last question. Do you plan to file or have you filed a complaint with the police about this or a particular person who restrained you or anything? Have you pursued this in any other police or legal channels or not?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Absolutely not. I'm pursuing it where I think it needs to be pursued. The issue here is what can be done to prevent this type of thing from happening in the future, and I believe I'm in the right place to address that.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: It's Joe Fontana, then John Solomon, Gurmant Grewal, and then Marlene Catterall.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Thank you, Jim and John. I believe you're in the right place to address it too, so thanks for bringing it forward.

I have a couple of specific questions of you and John if I could, before some general questions of public access and our access to the parliamentary precincts.

Jim, did you identify yourself as an MP or did they know that you were an MP when you were confronted by this person or this group, or were they impeding access to everyone—staff, other MPs? Were you the only one coming through the door at the time, or were you followed by some staff or other MPs you may or may not know? Specifically, did they know that you were an MP and address you in that fashion, or did you let them know that you were an MP?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: I let them know I was an MP, and then I was let through. So I got in. My staff of course were prevented from getting in. The staff that works in the cafeteria in that building wasn't able to be there, and I usually grab a sandwich or something for breakfast. So I did the best I could to prepare for my day, but without my staff, of course.

Then I went over to Sparks Street for breakfast, which is my usual thing. On my way back some staff told me.... I was on the way to caucus then, and they said the caucus won't have the caucus books. I said I would get them, because I knew I could get in because I was an MP.

So the second time they knew I was an MP, but it was a little bit more of a serious situation. They wanted ID and stuff like that.

Mr. Joe Fontana: That's my point. I just wanted to find out whether it made a difference to them whether you were an MP, or whether it was because you were an MP that they were trying to deny you access. I'll get to the staff in a minute, because I think John will tell you some of the testimony we had about whether staff is important for us to do our job. I'll get into that general question.

Was there anybody there from the House of Commons security? You had a number of people in front of the doors, I would imagine. Were there any House of Commons security people who were watching you? Obviously they know who you are. Were they trying to facilitate your movement and that of your staff or other people into the building?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: On both occasions there were. The first time it was a pretty straightforward thing. I said “I'm a member of Parliament”, the guard said “He's a member of Parliament”, and they kind of reluctantly let me go in. Whatever—I was let go in, and in I went.

The second time, though, despite the fact that the guard was shouting “He's an MP, he's an MP” and I was saying “I'm an MP”, they were much less willing.

Mr. Joe Fontana: So you're saying that our House of Commons security people at least were trying to facilitate your movement and that of other staff into the building?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Oh, yes.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Not other staff.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Okay, not other staff.

John, you said that you tried to get on the bus and the bus driver essentially said “I'm not taking you because there's a picket line up there”. What was he doing, just going to sit there?

• 1130

Mr. John Reynolds: He wasn't about to go this way. I think he was taking people to the parking lot, the other way, but was not about to go this way.

Mr. Joe Fontana: I'm just wondering why a bus driver, who works for us, would decide for himself that he was not going to take MPs to the—

Mr. John Reynolds: I don't know the answer to that.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Did you ask him?

Mr. John Reynolds: No. I was not about to argue. I just said “You're serious?” He said “Yes. We're not going up to the Hill because of the strike.”

Mr. Joe Fontana: So he wasn't taking anybody—not only you, but other MPs and other staff.

Mr. John Reynolds: No, nobody.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Did you discuss that with the House of Commons security people or the supervisor of the bus and say “This guy doesn't want to take us up there. What's up?” No?

Mr. John Reynolds: No, I didn't do anything. I just phoned the Speaker's office and said I wanted him to do a question of privilege.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Okay. So once you couldn't get the bus, you decided to go up there yourself.

Mr. John Reynolds: Yes.

Mr. Joe Fontana: At that point, you were impeded from entering the office?

Mr. John Reynolds: No. I had no other problem. I walked through the picket line without a problem.

Mr. Joe Fontana: They gave you no problem. They knew who you were, you were an MP—

Mr. John Reynolds: I don't know whether they knew who I was or not. I had no problems.

Mr. Joe Fontana: No problem gaining access.

Mr. John Reynolds: No.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Okay.

I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if I could ask some general questions of both Jim and John that relate to some previous testimony.

John, you talked about whether we ought to draw a line within the precincts, at least on the Hill, because not only are there sometimes pickets, but there are public demonstrations. Unique or not, the fact is that we allow public access to our parliamentary buildings, as close as you can get. Other countries and other jurisdictions don't.

I'm just wondering about this so-called line that you want, if you think that's part of our solution and one of the things we should consider. Are you talking about putting the line so that nobody can come on Parliament Hill because you feel we should not be obstructed in any way, or are you talking about a line that would facilitate a passage to the things? I'd be a little concerned about denying public access. One of the fantastic things about our Parliament Hill is that regardless of whether or not we get public demonstrations or so on, if they're legal, if they're orderly, there's nothing wrong with that. What would you like to see us do with what you pictured, a line of some sort or whatever?

Mr. John Reynolds: Just access. I have no problem whatsoever. I think that big lawn in front of Parliament is a great place to demonstrate. It's certainly big enough. British Columbia still doesn't have security at all its doors in their parliament, so you can still walk in, and we've tried hard to keep it that way. It's because there's agreement on what happens. I hear some comments from the premiers and you that we should have lots of security, and you're probably right.

I have no problem with demonstrations. I think that's wonderful. It's part of our system. But people have to understand that members of Parliament and their staff have to have access to do the job and make the laws in this country, or we could end up being shut down for weeks.

Mr. Joe Fontana: In our previous testimony, I can't remember the professor or author who wrote about parliamentary privilege.

The Chair: Joseph Maingot.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Maingot. He was hard-pressed to include staff, other than the officers of the House, including our staff, as being part and parcel of us being able to do a good job. I found that rather curious myself. I don't know if both of you had any insight as to how key staff is, how important to us.

You might answer whether you believe our constituency offices should be thought of, as I think Mr. Maingot talked about, as parliamentary precincts and therefore access to our constituency offices would be important to do that job. I wonder if you could both comment on that.

The Chair: Far be it from me to control you, but could you be fairly quick with this? I want to keep it moving, and it sets a pattern for what we'll be doing in the future. Feel free to say whatever you wish. I'm sure it will come up again.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: First of all, I'd like to say that I agree with John as far as people being on the Hill or in front of the buildings. I don't have a problem with that at all, and I think it should be allowed. It's just that you should know that nobody's going to block you or intimidate you from entering the building or coming and going. But they have a right to be there, in my view.

As far as staff and constituency offices, my opinion, and it's just one opinion—I'm obviously no expert, except just as an MP—is your staff is absolutely essential. You can't function without them. And I rely on my constituency office. When I'm here in Ottawa, I'm in touch with them almost hourly. If somebody blocked my constituency office today and didn't let my staff go into work today, that would seriously impede me. That's my opinion.

• 1135

Mr. John Reynolds: I have the greatest respect for Mr. Maingot and May and Beauchesne and all the people who do that kind of work, but we must remember that they're dealing from the past. When these rules were written, members of Parliament did not have staff. In fact, when I came here in 1972 members didn't have constituency offices and were just getting staff. They used to all come here. They'd come by train or wagon or whatever way they got here. So when these rules were written we didn't have those issues.

I would think now maybe this committee could modernize Parliament, all of the parliaments of the world. Don't forget that 25% of the world is run by parliaments that go by precedents set by other parliaments.

I think it's about time we included staff for members of Parliament and constituency offices. This is as much a part of doing the job today as it was a hundred years ago, but they just didn't have it a hundred years ago. They all came here and had no staff. They just came and sat in the seats and debated. I imagine it would have been a lot of fun when they did it then, without all the staff we have to go through today to get things done.

So I think it's time that Parliament.... I'm happy this committee is looking at it. We could include staff. And that might even help some other parliaments to look at this issue to make sure their jobs are not interfered with.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: On a point of order, just so I'm clear, Mr. Chairman, when Mr. Reynolds was talking about unimpeded access through the picket line, I just want to be sure which two picket lines we're talking about. I think there was a picket line in front of the building and there was a picket line on the road. I'd just like to make sure we know which picket lines we're talking about, because I think we're—

Mr. John Reynolds: I went through the line at the bottom, the west entrance from the Confederation Building coming up the hill. There was a picket line there, but they saw me coming and they sort of moved apart and I walked up the hill.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: So it wasn't in front of a building then.

Mr. John Reynolds: No.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: No, okay. Thank you.

The Chair: John Solomon, then Gurmant Grewal, and then Marlene Catterall.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm still not clear, Mr. Pankiw, on what exactly transpired that you define as a molestation. Could you just share with the committee what happened from the time you arrived at the picket line until the time you got through? Did you have any conversations? Did you just sort of bowl right through, or was there some discussion? Would you just enlighten us please?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: I think I've already answered that question. As I said, when I got—

Mr. John Solomon: I'm just not clear on what you did.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Well, I was physically stopped and told I wouldn't be allowed into the building.

Mr. John Solomon: Did somebody hold you or push you?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Pushed me with their hand. They told me I wasn't going into work today. I said “I'm a member of Parliament”, and I tried to force my way to the door. I've already explained this.

Mr. John Solomon: Did you push them aside then?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: I tried to, but I was unsuccessful.

There are really three irrefutable facts here. One is that I went to work, the same as I've done every day I've been in Ottawa, for almost two years now. What was different that day? The way I got out of the car and went to go to the door to the office I work in? No. Other members of Parliament were interfered with as well, and I'm sure their day was normal as well, except for the fact that something else was different. What was different was that there was a group of people blocking the access to the building.

The second thing is that there was intimidation and physical force involved. And the third thing is that the responsibility of this committee should be to see that something is done so that this type of thing can't happen in the future.

Mr. John Solomon: Were there any witnesses to this event?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: There were lots of people there.

Mr. John Solomon: Would you be able to recognize any of them?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: No.

Mr. John Solomon: Were there any police officers there?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Yes.

Mr. John Solomon: Did the police press charges because you were physically assaulted?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: No, I don't think so.

Mr. John Solomon: Did you raise it with the police that you were assaulted? They were there looking at this.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: The second time the police were required to separate the people and allow me to get through. Their intervention was required the second time.

You can call it what you want: you can call it assault, you can call it molestation, you can call it physical interference. The fact is that there was a barrier. That's the point.

Mr. John Solomon: Have you crossed picket lines in the past?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: No, Mr. Solomon. As I said, I don't think it's relevant whether it was a picket line, courteous demonstrators, protesters of whatever kind, or maybe just a group of guys decided they wanted to have some fun one day and block a building. I don't know. But the fact of the matter is that people had a barricade there. That's not acceptable, in my view.

Mr. John Solomon: The reason I'm asking the question, Mr. Pankiw, is because when I arrive at work, wherever I see a picket line impeding my progress to a particular destination I usually stop and say “Hi, what's happening? Why are you folks demonstrating? What's the issue?” I ask the question and then I head off, and if it's a matter of my job in terms of a member of Parliament, there's never been a problem. They always say “Proceed. Thanks for stopping and asking us about it.”

• 1140

Mr. Jim Pankiw: I've never in my life been interfered with like that. I did say excuse me, and the people refused to move.

Mr. John Solomon: With respect to the staff, Joseph Maingot indicated that a member of Parliament having access to his or her particular office or the precinct is one thing, but staff is another. You maintain—and Mr. Reynolds does as well, I presume, and I'd appreciate a comment—that we should have both MPs and staff protected from any kinds of picket lines in the future. Why do you think that is so? Are your staff elected to a privileged position like Parliament or the Senate, or do you think they have some other roles to play?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: First of all, I'm not referring specifically to picket lines. I'm referring to any blockade of a parliamentary building that prevents a member of Parliament from accessing that building.

My concern, Mr. Solomon, is for you as much as it is for me, and everybody at this table and all members of Parliament in the future. I don't want to function in a Parliament where somebody can stop you or your staff from performing the duties you were elected to carry out on behalf of the people who elected you.

Mr. John Solomon: Did you want to comment, Mr. Reynolds, on that as well?

Mr. John Reynolds: Jim said it very well.

Mr. John Solomon: Just one final point. Maybe it's because I had a late night last night and it's not clear in my head. When exactly did you identify yourself as a member of the Parliament to the picketers?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Well, both times I did. As I said, the first time I did that pretty much—

Mr. John Solomon: You came from the car and said “Hi, I'm Jim Pankiw, a member of Parliament”?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: No, I said “Excuse me”. The guy said “You're not going into work today”. I said “I'm a member of Parliament”, and I tried to force my way to the door. I was unsuccessful. The guard came out and said “He's a member of Parliament”, and that was pretty much the end of it.

Mr. John Solomon: In forcing your way to the door, did you kick somebody or push them or poke them? How would you describe that?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Well, I lunged for the door. I tried to get through the blockade of people.

Mr. John Solomon: Like a football move, you tried to run the line? Is that what it was? It's not clear in my head.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: I think we've been through this. There was a physical blockage. That's pretty simple.

Mr. John Solomon: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Gurmant Grewal.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to find a solution so that these things don't happen again. In that light, Mr. Pankiw, since this incident has happened maybe you have had an opportunity to talk to other members. Were there other members of Parliament who were obstructed from going to their workplace, or at least other staff members or employees of members of Parliament who were obstructed? Are you aware that other members of Parliament were also suffering because their staff couldn't reach their offices and they could not perform their duties?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Yes. Garry Breitkreuz told me that he was physically interfered with. Because he has a neck condition and he had a concern for his physical well-being, he immediately backed away from the situation. Most upsetting to me, in retrospect, was Roy Bailey, who I have a lot of respect for. I'm not sure, but I think Roy is 72 years old. He told me that it's the first time in his life he's ever been interfered with in his ability to go to work or to represent the people who elected him. He's been a parliamentarian, not only here but provincially, and to hear it coming from a guy.... You know, you think this is just so wrong.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: So there were other members who were also instructed not to go there?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Yes. I've also been told that one staff member had her umbrella broken and another one was physically touched and impeded.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Okay.

Mr. Reynolds mentioned not having access to the building by a bus and he had to walk through the freezing rain and so on. Mr. Strahl asked for clarification whether he was on the road or in front of the buildings or the precinct of the Parliament buildings. Let's go a step further. Hypothetically, say someone doesn't agree with the way you voted last night and comes to your residence and stops you at your house or at your apartment or in a hotel room, not letting you come out from there to come to the Parliament for working the next day. Do you think that not only the precincts of Parliament Hill should be the issue here? Should it be the residence or the constituency offices and so on? Should it be diversified much broader than what we are talking about today?

• 1145

Mr. John Reynolds: I'm not a lawyer, but I would think if somebody tried to stop me from leaving my house or my hotel to come to work they would be breaking the criminal law. I think police can solve that problem for you pretty quickly and would probably charge them. I think you're already looked after there. I'm concerned about the precincts and getting here.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: I would like to say they would also be breaching your parliamentary privilege. I mean, if his purpose or reason for stopping you was related to your parliamentary duties, then he's interfering with that.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Okay.

Very quickly, as I understand it, PSAC picketing was legal under the labour law. Such legal demonstrations take place at the Parliament precincts very frequently. Would you see that there should be some sort of injunction obtained so that there's a distance where they should be done so that there is an easy access to the members as well as to the staff members or the constituents?

The second part of that question is do you think there should be a communication to the members indicating that picketing is taking place on such and such a date so they have that information in advance?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: I'm not sure if I understand your question, but I'll answer it and you can tell me if I've addressed your question.

In my view, it's irrelevant which group we're talking about, whether it's a union or demonstrators of any kind. I think there have to be measures put in place to prevent them from impeding performance of our parliamentary duties. At the same time, I don't think restrictions should be put on people beyond that. If somebody wants to come and stand beside my office with a sign or talk to me or hand out a leaflet as I go by, I think that is entirely appropriate.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Okay.

The Chair: I have Marlene Catterall, Garry Breitkreuz, and Stéphan Bergeron. Marlene.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): To Mr. Pankiw first, you used pretty strong language in your statement in the House. You described a “mob of hooligans” who “used physical violence and intimidation”. You described them as “thugs”. What I've heard this morning doesn't exactly justify those statements.

Let me go over what I understand did happen. You came up to go into the building. Somebody put up a hand to stop you. You say they pushed you. It may have been you pushing against their hand. I don't know which, but they put up a hand to stop you. Did they do more than that? Did they try to push you back?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: They did.

I think the comments I made in the House.... The second time I tried to get back into the building, police were required to separate them to let me in. So I wouldn't categorize my remarks as inaccurate.

Obviously I was upset that day. There was a big interference in my ability to perform my parliamentary duty. Whether you call it assault, whether you call it violence, whether you call it shoving and pushing is just semantics. The fact of the matter is that I was blocked from entering the building.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: At the point where somebody did that, they did not know you were a member of Parliament. It was after that happened that you identified yourself as a member of Parliament.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: The first time, correct. The second time it was clear I was a member of Parliament.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I want to make sure I understand the first time, okay?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Yes.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Did the person then keep that hand on your chest, trying to stop you, or did they drop the hand at that point?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: At that time more hands were placed on me. I said “I'm a member of Parliament”, and I tried to force my way through to get to the door, and there was sort of a stoppage of me.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Okay. Maybe somebody else would pursue the second incident a little bit more.

What was actually said to you, aside from “You're not going to work today”?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: The first time that's pretty much it. The second time people were demanding ID from me to prove that I was a member of Parliament.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Okay. Do you know if there was a police report on either of these incidents?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: I do not know.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Okay. That's something we might want to pursue, Mr. Chair.

• 1150

Mr. Jim Pankiw: I'd like to say that I don't really care either. I think what's far more important than the details of the blockage is that there was a blockage and that the committee here should be examining what can be done to prevent something like that in the future.

The Chair: This is a parliamentary committee proceeding, Jim; it's not a judicial proceeding at all. So that's what we're doing.

Carry on, Marlene.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Reynolds, you weren't prevented from walking through the picket line in any way.

Mr. John Reynolds: No.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: And you weren't prevented from going through on the bus. It was the bus driver who decided he wasn't going to cross the picket line.

Mr. John Reynolds: The bus couldn't go through without the driver. I wasn't about to drive the bus.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: No, obviously.

Did he indicate that he was going to the Hill by another route?

Mr. John Reynolds: I asked him.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes, and what did he say?

Mr. John Reynolds: He said no.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Because I arrived at about the same time you did, and I did go in another entrance in my car.

Mr. John Reynolds: I don't have a car.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: No.

Mr. John Reynolds: I could have taken a cab.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: No, but the bus could have gone to the same entrance, obviously. He didn't offer that?

Mr. John Reynolds: No. I asked him, “Can't you go down this main street and go up the centre entrance? There's nobody there.” He said “No. We're not going on the Hill.”

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Okay, and he gave you no reason for that.

Mr. John Reynolds: He told me: “They're picketing”.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: But there was an entrance where they weren't picketing—

Mr. John Reynolds: I didn't know that then. I only knew when I walked up.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: He didn't either, obviously.

I wanted to ask you about what you had to say about the role of the president of the Public Service Alliance. You said that he had full knowledge of these pickets—

Mr. John Reynolds: Yes.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: —and with full knowledge he contravened the rules of this chamber. Do you have any way of knowing whether he knew this picketing was taking place? You made such an adamant statement that I thought you might have checked it out.

Mr. John Reynolds: No. If you're the president of the union, and he's been quoted in the papers that the strike is on, he obviously knows what's going on. My feeling is that there's nobody who should be at blame at the union; they're taking their orders. He's the head guy, so talk to him about it.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Okay.

Mr. John Reynolds: That was another reason for naming him.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I just wondered, the way you made that statement, if you had verified that.

Mr. John Reynolds: No, I did it for that reason. I don't think the people who are on a picket line should be blamed for anything. It's their leaders who put them there, and if they do something wrong it's the leaders who should take the penalty for it.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Thank you.

The Chair: Garry Breitkreuz and then Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I guess both you gentlemen know that I had a very similar experience, and I was going to rise on a point of privilege in the House as well. I discussed this with our whip beforehand, and he told me that you were going to rise on a point of privilege, and there was no point in all of us doing it. So all I did in the House that day was simply add a dimension to it that I think is very important, and that is that my staff was restricted from coming into the building with me. I had one of my staff with me from the riding, and it was very important to me that they be able to come into the building. They were not familiar with Ottawa. They were just here for a couple of days, and it was very important that they become familiar with the workings of Parliament.

I can concur, Jim, with the fact that they physically stopped people. Of course because of my neck condition I was not about to press the issue, so I backed off immediately.

The second time I tried to get through was when they just absolutely wouldn't let me through. They wouldn't accept my word that I was an MP. That's what concerned me.

The point I would like to make, and I want to know if you agree with it, is that my staff are my hands, my feet, my mouth. That morning was a very important morning for me, because I was getting all of the requests for interviews from the riding on the budget. So I had virtually no voice back in the riding. They're the ones who take the calls. I found out later that a lot of these phone calls came in, and nothing could be done about it.

I think that because my staff are an extension of me—they essentially help me do my work—I could not do what I'm doing without my staff. I don't think there's a member of Parliament here who would not agree with that statement.

Would you agree that restricting my staff is in a sense restricting a part of me?

Mr. John Reynolds: I'll go back and quote Beauchesne:

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.

• 1155

When that statement was made, members didn't have staff. But if you look at “unimpeded use of the services of its Members”, most of us I think would probably agree that our services would be greatly diminished if we didn't have staff in today's society. It was a different society back 100 years ago and 200 years ago. Today we have staff. That's why I think it's very important that this committee look at that aspect.

I know the parliamentary experts, and I talked to a few of them before I came today, would say the history is not there. But I've also talked to people who write these things, and they say maybe it's time to look at this issue and include staff.

You bring up a great example of why you couldn't do your job properly that day. All of them, whether it's May or Beauchesne or whoever you go back to, say that your job should not be impeded. It's even the case that they can't serve you with a summons in these precincts without the permission of the Speaker—or in any provincial legislature. That's how important it is.

The last thing we want to do is make ourselves look to the public that we think we're better than the average guy in the street. I don't think that's what we're doing. The average guy in the street elects us to come here to make laws. We can't be impeded in that process or impeded in the process of helping those constituents.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes. I've made my main point, and I don't know if Jim would like to comment on it.

You made the point, Jim, that what if you were coming here with a constituent. Well, I was, and they only had that limited time to be here with me. My staff is really an extension of me; they help me do my work. So would you agree that by restricting staff, they are restricting me in my ability to do my work?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: I would agree with that completely, Garry.

We can sit here and give examples all day, but I can tell you that that day, immediately after caucus, I had scheduled a taping at Rogers Cable, where I do these shows that the local cable station plays to communicate messages I have for constituents. One of the tasks I had scheduled that morning for my staff was to prepare the questions and the structure of the show. So my ability to put that show together was really hampered that morning because my staff couldn't get in to do that.

You could just go on and on. I think it's unquestionable that the answer to your question is an unqualified yes.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I've been part of a union for 25 years. I was part of the bargaining team for this. In this particular incident I believe they stepped over the line in restricting the top people in the country from doing their jobs. I think that holding the nation up like this is really going over the line. As a person who was in the union, negotiating and so on, I would have really hesitated to do that kind of thing. I'd like to put that on record.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, among the arguments pub forward there's the one of having to modernize the notion of parliamentary privilege. The matter of parliamentary privilege is very dear to me insofar as this is a privilege that was acquired through centuries of parliamentarian struggling, a privilege that was acquired after a brave struggle against the monarchy and the nobility and whose goal is to allow parliamentarians to go freely about their work free from constraint or duress to properly serve the interests of their constituents. I was talking about centuries of struggle and evolution. One must understand that the world turns and evolves and that this privilege must be modernized. But how to go about it? Maybe that's where the question lies?

Have I properly understood that, according to your interpretation of the concept, parliamentary privilege should extend to parliamentarian staff as well as riding offices?

[English]

Mr. John Reynolds: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: As for the parliamentary privilege alleged to have been breached in this particular case, I don't think I'm mistaken in saying that this is the privilege according to which one should not prevent a parliamentarian from reaching the place where he is to carry out his parliamentary duties. This privilege stems from a number of historical principles and precedents.

• 1200

If you don't mind my illustrating this privilege, I will go back to the early days of the French Revolution when, the king having decided to abolish the assembly, the deputies of the third state decided to meet in the Jeu de paume which is a sort of gymnasium. Not being able to meet where they should have been meeting, they met in the Jeu de paume without the learned company surrounding the assembly, without their staff, without anyone. The principle was to allow them to meet in assembly to do their work.

So, fundamentally, the privilege means that you should not prevent a parliamentarian from doing his work or going to where he has to go to discharge his parliamentary duty. How can a picket line in front of a riding office while the member is here, in Ottawa, freely going about his parliamentary business, be a breach of parliamentary privilege, in your opinion?

[English]

Mr. Jim Pankiw: I don't believe that it's a breach of parliamentary privilege, as long as they're not interfering with the operation of that office.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, but let's remember what privilege is. Privilege means that you can't prevent a parliamentarian from going to his place of work to discharge his parliamentary duties. Even though you may prevent his staff having access to the riding office because of a picket line, how does this contravene parliamentary privilege since the member is here, in the House, freely discharging his parliamentary duties?

[English]

Mr. John Reynolds: I guess the example of that would be if today I were working with my staff from the constituency to do something for a bill I was going to debate tomorrow, and we arranged to be on the phone at nine o'clock in the morning here, which is six o'clock in British Columbia, and my staff gets to that office but is prevented from entering.

I have no problem with information pickets, but to stop them from entering would be wrong, especially with physical force. In most cases they can stop you, because there are so many of them you couldn't get through. We really haven't had that problem.

We can go back a long time in history and find a lot of quotes as to why we did things. They were really to make sure the average person was looked after, and not the king controlling things. You've got to make sure that doesn't happen.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: If, according to your suggestion, we were to decide to modernize parliamentary privilege to include members' staff and riding offices, should this new modernized definition of parliamentary privilege apply retroactively with a view to blaming the Public Service Alliance of Canada for having prevented members' staff from reaching their work place?

[English]

Mr. John Reynolds: I don't believe in retroactive legislation. I think what this committee should do is give a message that we have no problem with protesting, put all the pickets you want on Parliament Hill, all the yelling and screaming you want to do, but members of Parliament cannot be impeded on access to do their job for the people of Canada.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: So if ever we were to decide to modernize parliamentary privilege in this sense you're suggesting, it would simply be an indication for the future.

[English]

Mr. John Reynolds: I would hope the future is now.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, but concerning this particular case, would you want us to apply this new version of parliamentary privilege retroactively to judge those events that took place over the last few days?

[English]

Mr. John Reynolds: No. We can't stop what happended in the past. I think bringing it forward to this committee for what the precincts should be would be quite satisfactory from my point of view.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Agreed. Mr. Chairman, and you've raised this yourself, we have here a conflict between two fundamental rights: the right for parliamentarians to discharge their parliamentary duties and the right for workers to associate and freely demonstrate in the event of a labour conflict. The second is as dear to my heart as the first, insofar as it is also the result of long years if not centuries of struggle to win rights from the bourgeoisie and big business.

By broadening parliamentary privilege which is a fundamental right, are we not, by the same token, going to limit the fundamental rights entrenched in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the rights of association and demonstration enjoyed by the unions and the workers?

• 1205

[English]

Mr. Jim Pankiw: No. I reject the premise of your question. I don't think there is a conflict at all. I think you have the parliamentary rights and the rights of demonstrators, and I don't think there's a conflict there at all. But I think we have to have a line that you don't cross. Your right to demonstrate can't take any form you choose. And the line is that you can't impede the function of Parliament.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Let's look at those two cases separately again, first Mr. Pankiw's. Based on what I've understood from what you're saying yourself and from what I've heard about the events and we'll probably get more explanations in this respect when the people from the Public Service Alliance of Canada appear before this committee, it seems that the demonstrators were clearly told to let the members pass and not prevent them from going into the buildings to do their work.

Should we then not conclude, Mr. Pankiw, that what happened to you is simply a misunderstanding insofar as demonstrators mistakenly who did not recognize you as a member and tried to treat you as they treat all people trying to get across a picket line and that there was no intentional and deliberate breach of parliamentary privilege but simply a misunderstanding or an unfortunate error in your case?

[English]

Mr. Jim Pankiw: I alternatively was able to get into the building both times, but the fact of the matter is that there was a barrier there. Staff never were able to gain access to the building. I think both of those things—the fact that staff weren't able to gain access and that there was a barrier—are inappropriate. That's something this committee should address, that barriers should not be allowed to exist.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That's fine, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, you should know that I still have a long list. As I understand it, we're going to have a short question from John Richardson, then we have John Solomon, then we're going to have a short question from Lynn Myers, a short question from George Baker, and a short question from Chuck Strahl. Okay, so it's John Richardson.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On the face of the presentation of the members who appear before us, I think there isn't any doubt that hands were laid on the body of a member of Parliament while he tried to enter his place of work. With that in mind, I think we go back to the privileges and the rulings under Erskine May and others. I think the most important one goes back to 1733. It's written in reasonably current language and current thought:

...the assaulting, insulting or menacing any Member of this House, in his coming to or going from the House, or upon the account of his behaviour in Parliament, is an high infringement of the privilege of this House, a most outrageous and dangerous violation of the rights of Parliament and an high crime and misdemeanour.

That was written some time ago, just a few years ago. And it's held its ground since that time.

I believe firmly in my own mind that your rights were violated. That's opinion, my own opinion. I think they were violated.... They knowingly touched you, but the people who violated probably didn't understand the law that underlies this. I think something should come out of this—some direction, through the Speaker, to other agencies and unions, and there are many of them, many levels of them. They should be given a booklet that shows in some way the privileges within the precinct of Parliament. I don't think they understand that.

I think there's a misunderstanding, but the fact is that ignorance has no place before the law. So I cannot see in the simple face of it anything but a prima facie case that your rights were abused.

• 1210

Mr. Jim Pankiw: I agree with everything you've said. And in support of your view, I'd like to again point out the fact that I merely got out of the car fifteen feet in front of the door of the office building I work in, like I do every morning.

I'd like to say that your suggestion that the unions should be informed of this is probably a good one, but this in no way should be applied to unions or restricted to unions. This should just simply apply to any circumstance and anybody.

I noticed in the transcripts of the previous deliberations that Ms. Davidson said that the mere fact of having a picket in front of a courthouse would cause intimidation and interference. In my view, that same thing exists here. Well, I don't know; you could get a little dicey there, I guess. But if there's a blockage, in my view, just the fact that it's present constitutes a violation or contempt of Parliament, in essence.

The Chair: John Solomon, then Lynn Myers, George Baker, Chuck Strahl.

Mr. John Solomon: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

I'm just reading from a newspaper article and a quote that came from picket captain André Lalonde, who told the National Post that Mr. Pankiw was to blame because he didn't identify himself as an MP. The quote is:

“He assaulted the picketers first. I can vouch for that. So he was looking for action,” he said.

What do you have to say about this particular quote? Were you looking for action, or was this just an opinion?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Was I looking for action? Well, as I've already pointed out twice, I got out of the car fifteen feet in front of the door of the building I work in, like I do every morning. If that sounds like a guy who's on his way to work that's looking for action, then I guess you can interpret that how you want. In my view, I didn't do anything out of the ordinary. I go to work every day without incident.

I guess I'd like to point out again that I don't believe that the actions of the people that morning—it happened to be a union—are reflective or indicative of the attitude of most members in that union. In fact I'm acting, as I've also already mentioned, on behalf of a constituent of mine who is a member of PSAC, corresponding with the minister on his behalf. I certainly hope that works out well. Whatever. That's totally off topic, I guess.

Mr. John Solomon: One quick question, Mr. Chair, and then a follow-up after the answer.

In your House statement you used fairly aggressive language. You talked about being assaulted by the strikers and you referred to them as a “mob of hooligans”, using “physical violence and intimidation”. Do you still stand by those words?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Well, again, I've also already addressed that. The second time, police separation and escort and the assistance of the guards was required to get me in the building.

You can categorize it how you want, and you can use whatever language you want, but at the end of the day there was a physical interference.

Mr. John Solomon: So you stand by those words that you used in the House in the past—that you were assaulted by a “mob of hooligans”, and so on? I'm just asking you. I have no opinion on it. I'm just trying to confirm....

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Well, again, you can use whatever words you want. I think we've pretty well established what happened.

Mr. John Solomon: I've been involved with public life off and on for 15 or 20 years now, and I've had occasions to confront or at least deal with picketers. They picketed my office when I was in public office. They've picketed a number of establishments I had to enter on business, whether I was an MLA or a member of Parliament. In all the years—including when I was in provincial politics, when we were in government and we had the government civil service striking and blocking the legislature—in the all the years that I've encountered these picket lines, I've never encountered something that's happened as Mr. Pankiw and Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Breitkreuz have shared with us.

I'm just curious to know. Maybe the times are changing, or maybe they just had a bad day, but I've never had this happen. And keep in mind that they were picketing the government I was part of, and I still had fairly good.... They let me pass through to the legislature. That particular year was 1982. We deserved it, and we got it in the ear after that. So I just put that on the record.

• 1215

This is a very serious matter. Our committee is a quasi-judicial body. All testimony is truthful; if otherwise, obviously there's action that can be taken. So I think we look forward to having the other witnesses appear.

I thank Mr. Pankiw and Mr. Reynolds for their testimony, because it's been very important to our work.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Thank you.

I'd just like to comment to bring a total perspective on the comments I made in the House of Commons, to which you referred. In the same breath I also said in the House that I didn't feel that the actions of those specific individuals were indicative of the members in that union as a whole. I think you need to also take that statement into context with the whole thing. You can't selectively pick one statement and not the other I made at the same time.

The Chair: Lynn Myers, then George Baker, then Chuck Strahl, then the chair.

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I heard both of you say that you thought pickets should be allowed. I think I also heard both of you say that the message should get out that MPs should not be interfered with and that the precinct be set in a way that's appropriate.

Mr. Reynolds, I think you made the point quite strongly. I wanted to direct the question to you. In light of that, how would you give advice to us as a committee to get that message out? What vehicle do you see us taking? Secondly, how do you see the enforcement then taking place, based on that?

Mr. John Reynolds: I think the Speaker has to be the one to set the rules. The Speaker works for all of us and is elected by all of us.

I think the recommendation from this committee to the Speaker should be that there should be a precinct—and maybe this committee should outline what the precinct should be—and that within that precinct members and their staff have full access to their offices at all times. And of course the security of it should be the House of Commons security. If they need extra help, it's always available.

Mr. Lynn Myers: That being said, how would what happened have been different—or would it?

Mr. John Reynolds: I think it would have been. If we had precincts, it would be known that it would be a violation of the law if you stopped members of Parliament and their staff from going to work. At that point, if somebody is going to try to violate that rule, they have to pay the consequence.

Mr. Lynn Myers: And what is the consequence? What's the sanction?

Mr. John Reynolds: I would guess arrest. It's not unlike PSAC the other day when they were out somewhere in Ottawa, I read, and they got pepper-sprayed. I don't like that any more than anybody else, but there are rules and there are laws, and you have to obey them. That includes us and picketers.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Thank you.

The Chair: George Baker.

Mr. George S. Baker (Gander—Grand Falls, Lib.): This is just a very short question, Mr. Chairman. I'm wondering if the witnesses could pass judgment or give their opinion on this fact as I understand it.

On the general question on the right to picket Parliament Hill and employees of Parliament Hill, I'm wondering where the line could be drawn. If you have a strike that affects say a meat-packing plant, then you would normally have picketers that would walk across in front of the roads at the meat-packing plant, as we see quite often. Here, we have a case of the House of Commons, where some of the employees of the House of Commons.... The reason given, for example, the other day to this committee for why the white bus drivers are paid $3,000 a year more than the green bus drivers is because the white bus drivers are members of PSAC.

The Chair: I didn't know any of the bus drivers were green.

Mr. George Baker: Of the green buses. Did I say green buses?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: You said “green bus drivers”.

Mr. George Baker: Oh, the green bus drivers. Sorry. The drivers of the green buses. If I said it in French it would be better, right?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: An obvious case of racial discrimination.

Mr. George Baker: So the queston becomes, then, that you have members of that union within Parliament Hill, and I'm wondering if the witnesses would have any.... That certainly is a new matter, a new fact to the situation. You couldn't compare PSAC picketing a jurisdiction in which they have absolutely no say at all, they have absolutely no interest—they have no employees there, no members of their union. But Parliament Hill is a place where they do have members of their union working, making more money than people who are not in their union, which is rather strange—equal pay for work of equal value. So I wonder if you could pass judgment on that, that they do have employees on the hill.

• 1220

Mr. John Reynolds: Parliament is a strange place, George.

The Chair: George, that's the longest short question we've had, but I don't mind.

Mr. John Reynolds: I don't know that there were any of their employees in the Wellington Building.

Parliament is a strange place, and we have different things happen. My secretary in my office doesn't qualify for the $800 a year more because she can't pass the French test. She speaks all the French I require in my constituency, and so does my other staff, but they don't get that $800. I think that's discriminatory, because I don't need it in my constituency. It's discriminatory toward my staff. Parliament's a strange place. It's not equal for everybody. But we have rights, and we have the right to access to where we're going.

Mr. George Baker: On the question of the Wellington Building and no PSAC employees, the white buses do serve there. There are probably other employees on the Hill as well covered by PSAC, but the white buses do service the Wellington Building.

The Chair: The bus drivers are in PSAC.

So it's Chuck Strahl, Stéphane Bergeron, briefly.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I just have a couple of comments.

Mr. Joe Fontana: I have a point of order. I hear all kinds of comments. Can we just have a clarification? I hear the drivers in the white buses are definitely PSAC members and the drivers in the green buses—I see somebody nodding—are also PSAC members.

The Clerk of the Committee: Two different locals, two different bargaining units.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Okay. So now we might have the answer to the question I asked you about why the bus driver didn't want to go—

The Chair: I only mention it because it is relevant.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: That's a good segue into my comment, which is that although the staff of Parliament Hill belong to a bargaining unit, the staff on Parliament Hill are not allowed to strike. They have binding arbitration and they have a process they go through, but the staff on Parliament Hill aren't allowed to strike, in order to provide services to members of Parliament.

I find it just a little ironic that although staff are prohibited from striking.... In other words, there's a restriction on their rights as Canadians, more restrictive than other Canadians, because it has been determined by Parliament that Parliament must go on; the show must go on, and part of the show is the necessity to have the staff. You must have Hansard, you have to have the security guards, you have to have...well, there are hundreds of staff. We all know that. We depend on the staff for translation, for everything.

So the staff have their rights restricted in this case because Parliament's decided already that in some cases you have to make sure that Parliament proceeds. In the same way, I would argue that the staff of a member of Parliament are also essential for Parliament to go on. In other words, it's not just the translators—although they're very important for a fellow like me—but the staff at all levels. It's not like we have a ministerial staff; we have a couple of people who make our public functions possible often. So I would just make that comment.

The other comment I would make is that in the case of Roy Bailey, who I talked with after this incident.... I would be in a real conundrum if I had to cross a picket line. I don't wear my pin as a rule; I keep it locked up in a safe place so it doesn't get lost. So I don't wear a pin, and I have no other identification. When Roy Bailey came to the picket line he did have his pin; he wears it as a ring so he doesn't lose it. So he showed the picketers his ring and said “This is the pin that identifies me as a member of Parliament. I am a member of Parliament. Please let me through.” And he was told, “I don't care who you are, you're not coming through”, and they turned him away. He said “I'll go for a coffee somewhere and I'll come back in an hour, but you're going to have to straighten this out.”

He appealed to them and said “I'm a member of Parliament. Here's my ID. I'm Roy Bailey. Let me through.” And still they said no.

There's no doubt in my mind that they were knowingly stopping members of Parliament. That should never be allowed. It was, As Mr. Richardson read off, absolutely wrong to stop an MP who has identified himself in every way possible, including his logical ID, and not let him through. And a guy like me would never have been let through, because I just don't have that ID with me.

• 1225

Mr. Joe Fontana: I wouldn't let you through regardless.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just on general principles.

Anyway, I just wanted to make those two points.

The Chair: Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make two comments and I have a brief question.

My first comment concerns a remark Mr. Reynolds bootlegged with one of his answers. I don't need English in my riding anymore than he needs French in his but I think that I need French, English, Spanish, German and Swahili for my personal culture and to be better able to communicate with the world at large and understand it.

My other comment, Mr. Chairman, has to do with the little comment you also piggybacked-in concerning the French Revolution. I would simply like to point out that I quite realize that the parliamentary privilege we're talking about presently has nothing to do with the French tradition but stems from the British one. I did point out the example taken from the French revolution simply to show how important it is to allow parliamentarians to meet in assembly but that it doesn't necessarily have any consequence for the company around them.

Let's get back to this matter of their staff. In the event of a possible modernization of the parliamentary privilege principle, we might want to write in this matter of staff. I'd like clarification as to what we're talking about. We know that the senior officials of the House aren't included under parliamentary privilege. We would like to include our staff. While listening to Messrs. Breitkreuz, Reynolds and Pankiw's comments, I understood that it was perhaps broader than that. That also includes transportation services, printing services and translation services. What staff are we talking about when looking at modernization of the parliamentary privilege? Are we talking about all the staff needed for Parliament's proper operation so that we can properly discharge our duties? Does it go as far as staff in positions on Belfast Street? Where does the definition of the staff to be included in the parliamentary privilege stop, within the context of a possible modernization you were mentioning before?

[English]

Mr. John Reynolds: I would suggest that's really the job your committee has to decide, exactly where it goes. In reality, as we said before, the bus drivers can belong to a union, but they don't have a right to strike if they're going to work on the Hill. The reason that is there is to make sure we all have access and we can all do our job. That would go with the printer and the officers and everybody else. In fact, if you go back in Parliament and look at Beauchesne and May and others, they actually talk about the officers on the Hill, because they are required to make Parliament operate.

I would suggest that anybody who is an integral part of what makes things work on the Hill should be included in the right of access to do their job. But again, that's for your committee to decide exactly how far you want to go.

The Chair: I'm going to wind this up and in a moment I'll give you both an opportunity to conclude. We appreciate, by the way, your being here. It's been very useful for us. I think you've got a sense of where we're at.

As Stéphane said, this is a matter of two fundamental rights. On the one side is the right to demonstrate, and within the right to demonstrate is the very special right to picket. It's quite different from the people shouting at us from the lawn on Parliament Hill. I understand that under common law, anyone can pass a picket line. That makes you wonder what the right to picket is all about. My understanding is that anybody can pass a picket line. In this case, though, because of the referral, we're focusing particularly on the parliamentary privilege side of it, which is this other great fundamental right.

John, you in particular have stressed the question of the precinct. It may well be that because these problems are most likely to arrive here in Ottawa, we have to somehow draw lines. But wherever we draw those lines, there is the space outside and the other right comes into play. So in order to reach the line, we have to deal with this matter of what is the right to picket.

You should know, and I think is was Gurmant who brought it up for you, that we proposed with Mr. Maingot—so let's just think of the precinct thing first—the idea of a member of Parliament coming out of his or her home on the way to vote, going to take the plane, or the boat and the plane, or whatever it is you have to do to get here, and someone comes up to them and says “Mr. Reynolds, I am here to stop you going to vote”, and they stop you, either physically or semi-physically.

• 1230

As you said, if someone did that outside your home the police would arrest them and there would be a criminal case. In this case there are two things. There would be a criminal case, I assume, but there also is the fact that they have said to you that they know you're a member of Parliament and you're on direct parliamentary business. In other words, there are two things. It's not enough to recognize you as a member of Parliament strolling down the street or on the beach; it's that you're on the way to parliamentary business. We have some way to deal with that, and then we have to deal with the same thing when we get here. That's the sort of precinct side.

The other side of what you call modernization is this question of staff. You went back to the late 19th century, when you were first here, and there were no staff. But who are those staff? We have staff here with us, constituency staff. You mentioned others. How are they recognized as being on parliamentary business? Because it's the two things. Again, if they're impeded going to the beach, it's a criminal matter, even though they're members of your staff or perhaps more significantly members of the House of Commons itself. If they're impeded on parliamentary business, it seems to me that's the key.

Now, it may well be that these things are simpler here in Ottawa, and we can, I hope, come up with an arrangement that in the future will allow these rights to remain and perhaps be strengthened.

Do either of you have any concluding remarks?

Mr. John Reynolds: I would just say that you have a lot of issues you have to look at. In this country even cabinet ministers can commandeer a seat on an airplane today by just saying they have to be there, because they are the chief lawmakers of this land. Now, I wouldn't want to do that, ever. I could have done it in my past careers at certain times, but I would hate to be the guy who did that and kicked somebody off the airplane. One of our members from British Columbia did it one time and made a lot of headlines across this country, because I don't think it was necessarily parliamentary business they were on.

What we do is very important. I think it's important, and I don't think too many unions disagree with that, the ones I've talked to. As I have mentioned, I had a restaurant for years. It was run by the restaurant unions in British Columbia. We got along very well and worked well together. That's the way this country works. A lot of people who are union members are good, law-abiding Canadian citizens. They just have to know what the rules are.

I think most unions would agree that this is where the laws are made. They have a right to protest here. They certainly have access. We all get calls from people to come and see us. We see them or we don't see them; it's our choice. But if we don't see them they can yell and scream about it.

We've got a great free country. We have to just make sure there's a law to make sure that members are not impeded from doing their job. I don't think there'd be a great uproar from the unions at all. And I hope this doesn't get into a PSAC versus us thing. It's not what it's all about. This is all about access for members to go to work; that's all it is.

The Chair: Jim.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: I think I might, if I heard you right, take issue with one thing you said. I think you suggested that House of Commons staff are more essential and important than staff of members of Parliament. I'm not sure that's really the case. I really think that our staff are an absolutely integral part of what we do. The House of Commons can't function without the MPs, so I think those staff are both equally essential.

The Chair: I appreciate that.

We thank you both for being here.

We continue tomorrow with PSAC. Colleagues, before you go, I stress that our meeting tomorrow is at 12.15. I know it's difficult, it's caucus morning, but it's extremely important from the point of view of fairness that we be here in a timely fashion to deal with the next set of witnesses.

I secondly stress that at four o'clock tomorrow in this room is our meeting with the delegation from the United Kingdom. I would urge again that you be here on time. I mention again that if you care to invite a colleague who has a particular interest in parliamentary matters, we would be delighted to see them here. The food will be excellent and the wine will be excellent.

We now adjourn until tomorrow, same place, 12.15, on the same topic. Thank you.