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]

Wednesday, March 17, 1999

• 1228

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, perhaps we could begin. Before we get to the order of the day, I would remind you all that at 4 p.m. today we have another meeting in this room with a delegation of visiting parliamentarians who are studying televising of the House of Commons and, I assume, its committees. I'd be grateful if you could all be here more or less on time. As I mentioned, I think it's an appropriate occasion to bring one, two, or three other people from each party. We will, of course, have simultaneous translation. But it's not an official meeting of the committee, so it will be part social and part an exchange. So if you do have colleagues who are interested in the operation of Parliament, I would urge you to invite them to the meeting that will take place at 4 p.m. today.

Colleagues, the order of the day consists of 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 the picket lines established to impede access to the precincts of Parliament.

• 1230

Our witnesses today are Nycole Turmel, who is the national executive vice-president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada; Stephen Jelly, executive assistant to the alliance executive committee; and Sarah Bélanger, executive assistant, office of the vice-president.

We welcome the witnesses here. We appreciate your being here. Again, I apologize for starting a little late. I think we provided you with the transcripts of previous meetings. As you know, yesterday the two members named in these referrals appeared before us, and I think you're aware of what happened then.

Do all members have a copy of the material that I have? All members have a copy of the brief.

We're in your hands. Nycole, will you go first? We're in your hands as to how you care to proceed.

[Translation]

Ms. Nycole Turmel (National Executive Vice-President, Public Service Alliance of Canada): I will present our brief and then will ask my colleagues, Sarah Bélanger and Stephen Jelly, to join me in answering the questions.

First, I would like to thank the committee for having invited me to appear before you today to consider the allegation that the Alliance or its members, leaders or staff, breached the privilege of a member of te House of Commons during picketing undertaken on February 17, 1999.

No doubt, you realize that the Alliance takes this allegation seriously. We want to be sure that our position on specific allegations and general questions of privilege is well understood and known publicly. Given that we have very little time and given the seriousness of the issues under consideration, I don't feel that it would be appropriate that only the summary of our official brief and the questions that follow be all that is made public. Therefore, I would like to obtain your assurance that the brief that the Alliance is presenting to the committee will be printed and distributed as an appendix, either to the minutes, or as evidence in your considerations today. I would like to have that assurance before continuing. There's no problem with that? Thank you.

In its brief, the Alliance states that several issues that are brought to the attention of your committee are of a legal nature, but that the procedure is inherently political. Therefore, even though the procedure may lead to sanctions against the Alliance, its leaders, its members or its staff, we have been and we are deprived of the right to an impartial process and natural law. More specifically, even though we are essentially the defendant in this case, neither the people who would have actually committed this offence nor the nature of the offence have been clearly identified.

[English]

Add to that the following facts: we have not been formally notified of the specific charge or charges against us in advance of the proceedings; we have not been afforded an opportunity to depose witnesses; we have not been granted the right to cross-examine any witnesses you have called or are likely to call in the future; and we have no knowledge that the charges have been properly investigated or that witnesses have been interviewed in the normal way. We also do not know whether we need to meet the criminal test of “beyond a reasonable doubt” or the civil test of “the balance of probabilities” in order to defend against the allegations that have been levelled at us.

Hence, while we stand to be corrected, our impression is that we have been summoned to appear before a House of Commons committee that is acting as a court without having had an opportunity to defend against the charges. But the court is one where you act as judge, jury, and prosecutor and where the defence is restricted way beyond the point of fairness. In short, the process that is being followed is fundamentally flawed. It has denied us the minimum requirement of procedural fairness and natural justice.

It needs to be underscored that all of these restrictions and more are contrary to the charter and the bill of rights. In light of the above, we firmly believe the process you are engaging in should be halted.

• 1235

In the event that you decide to proceed, the alliance will present its side of the story in this forum, but we do so under protest. We strongly request that you revisit your process and procedures and afford us an opportunity through counsel to adequately defend against the serious allegations that have been made against the alliance and its officers, members, and staff.

[Translation]

Here is the fundamental question that your committee must address: Did one or all of: the Public Service Alliance of Canada, its National President Daryl Bean, and individual members or staff of the Alliance obstruct or molest one or more members of Parliament by denying access to the parliamentary precincts, and by doing so, commit a contempt of Parliament?

For several reasons that I will outline later, we answer this question with a resounding no. However, before continuing, allow me to take a few minutes to briefly describe the nature of the picket line that was set up of February 17, 1999, and the people who were responsible for it.

First, we should like to make it clear that members of the Alliance who were and are still on strike against their employer, the Government of Canada, did in fact picket in front of buildings that are generally considered to be within the precincts of Parliament on February 17, 1999.

Second, even though the picket lines in question were attended by the police, they took no action against the striking members of the Alliance because, we assume, no law was violated in the opinion of the police officers. One can assume that if an assault occurred as alleged by the Member for Saskatoon-Humboldt, charges would surely have been laid and the members of the Alliance involved would have subsequently had an opportunity to defend themselves in court proceedings.

Third, neither the National President of the Alliance, Daryl Bean, nor myself had direct knowledge that members of the Alliance who were and are on strike against the Government of Canada would picket what are generally understood to be the precincts of the House of Commons of February 17, 1999. However, the fact that the picket line was to be established was known to the official strike structure of the Alliance. As a result, your committee can conclude that the picket line was officially sanctioned by the Alliance and its National Executive.

Fourth, the picket lines were set up outside the buildings where members of the Alliance who work for the federal government are in a legal strike position, and were actually on strike. Furthermore, contrary to what you have heard, the picket line was neither an information picket line nor a secondary picket.

Fifth, there's nothing that legally prevents employees from picketing in front of buildings housing members of Parliament. Even though Parliament staff do not have the right to strike under the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, they are not forbidden to establish information picket lines as was falsely stated to this committee.

Sixth, it is a fact that different MPs have reported various experiences on the same picket line. Hence, while one member claims that he was assaulted, other members have advised the House that they had absolutely no trouble when confronted with the picket line and, having identified themselves and engaged in conversation with some of the picketers or picket captains, either crossed the picket line or not as a matter of their own choice. We would like to point out that we appreciated that approach and we thank them through your committee.

[English]

With these six points clearly in mind, I should like to turn to the two questions: first, did striking members of PSAC assault a member of Parliament and prevent him from carrying out his responsibilities on February 17; and second, were other members of Parliament impeded by the police or indirectly impeded by the PSAC pickets? While one member of Parliament has publicly indicated that he was assaulted by members of PSAC and refused access to his office during the February 17, 1999, picket line, his allegation was not substantiated by the actions of the on-site police officers or of any of the witnesses to the event that the alliance has had an opportunity to speak to.

• 1240

Moreover, rather than substantiate the allegation, statements from other members of Parliament who encountered the very same picket line and reported very different treatment from the alliance pickets would tend to support the proposition that the alliance members on the picket line fully understood that they were required to allow access to members of Parliament, and that they complied with that requirement.

Since no PSAC members have been identified as committing an assault on the member, and since no charges have been laid against any PSAC member for assault, or any other criminal charge for that matter, arising out of the February 17, 1999, legal picket line, the PSAC takes it as a given that no assault took place and will urge your committee to reach the same conclusion.

While it has been asserted that members of Parliament were turned back from entering buildings by the police, who said they shouldn't enter, we are not in a position to respond directly to this allegation, and we believe the committee should address the question directly with representatives of the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service.

That said, we'll say again it was the responsibility of members of Parliament to advise either the police or the PSAC picket captains that they were members and they had a right to unimpeded access to their offices.

It has also been alleged that the picket line impeded members' access because “the buses that trip people around here would not cross access picket lines on the road”. Since the buses transport people other than members of Parliament, one could expect that the PSAC pickets would attempt to delay the buses until such time that it was clear the buses only contained members who have an unrestricted right to access their offices, even in the context of a legal picket line. While this may well have resulted in some inconvenience for some members of Parliament, it can surely not be construed as contempt of Parliament.

Before closing, I should like to take a few minutes to address two other questions with regard to parliamentary privilege that are being considered by your committee.

[Translation]

The second question that your committee has under consideration is whether the definition of the precincts of Parliament should be expanded, and whether parliamentary privilege should be extended to cover people employed to work for members of Parliament.

I would like the Alliance's position to be clear from the outset: we do not believe that general questions with regard to privilege should be addressed in the charged environment that exists as a result of the allegations that have been levelled against the Alliance. That said, should the committee continue along this path, the Alliance would answer no to an expanded definition of the precincts of Parliament, as well as to guidelines that would prevent the reoccurrence of activities such as the picket lines of last February 17. We will in fact go further and argue that the existing privilege as archaic and should be substantially eroded.

It is beyond question that the precincts of Parliament have expanded into areas where members of Parliament are co-located with other organizations. This co-location has and will continue to result in situations where members of Parliament confront picket lines that may inconvenience them. But, and it's a big but, this inconvenience is no greater than that which a member of Parliament would face during any labour dispute that occurred outside of the precincts of Parliament.

The notion that privilege should be extended to the staff of members of Parliament is equally appalling. When the questions of privilege were first raised in the House of Commons on February 17, 1999, a member argued that:

Once again, I was unable to go about my work because my staff was denied access to my office. Not allowing my staff to accompany me is a very serious infringement on my privileges.

However, according to the testimony heard by your committee, it seems that this privilege does not extend to the staff of members of Parliament, as they are not required by the House in order to exercise its privilege.

The Alliance feels very strongly that parliamentary privilege, rather than being extended, should be curtailed because it can lead to, and in this case has led to, and unconditionable departure from the concepts of procedural fairness and natural justice.

• 1245

In a very real sense, the Alliance, its officers, staff and members have been made defendants in your proceeding and yet no precise identification has been made as to who, if anyone, actually breached parliamentary privilege and or committed a contempt against Parliament, which is contrary to our law under the Charter and Declaration of Human Rights.

That being the case, while the House can, in our opinion, regulate its internal affairs without interference from the courts, it should not and does not enjoy that same right when it comes to activities outside proceedings of the legislator. This is particularly the case, where the liberty of an individual is or could be compromised by the exercise of parliamentary privilege.

In other words, while it is probably appropriate for the House to continue its centuries old practice of disciplining its own members through the exercise of privilege, it should not in present day society have the ability to initiate internal proceedings against individuals and organizations other than through the courts, in the context of the Charter.

[English]

Finally, I would like to comment on the appropriate balance between the fundamental right to strike and parliamentary privilege, a question that has been discussed at length by members of your committee. It would appear, from my reading of your record, that many members of your committee have a fundamental understanding that parliamentary privilege can conflict with rights, including free speech and freedom of association. As a result, many of you appear to be concerned that the exercise of privilege not result in other rights being trampled.

While the alliance is pleased by these observations, we do not believe the case can be made to restrict the right to picket buildings within the parliamentary precinct. To be clear, once it is established, as it should be, that the PSAC strike is legal and that it was appropriate for the members of the PSAC to picket buildings that are generally considered to be within the precinct of Parliament, the case should be closed. It will prove to be impossible to strike a more encompassing balance than already exists between parliamentary privilege and the rights of workers to strike and picket outside buildings that are within the parliamentary precinct.

Moreover, Parliament has access to redress if it believes there is evidence that a picket line is violent. The House of Commons has at least the same right to pursue legal action in an attempt to obtain an injunction that either prevents picketing or limits picket line activity as any other organization that believes a picket line is causing it serious harm.

For these and many other reasons, the PSAC believes that your committee should resist the temptation to expand the privilege afforded to members of Parliament or establish some formal guidelines that attempt to prevent picket lines from being established outside of what are commonly referred to as parliamentary precincts. If guidelines are to be adopted, they should focus on what MPs should do when they encounter a picket line. For example, they should clearly say it is a responsibility of members to advise pickets that they are members and they have a right, pursuant to parliamentary privilege, to cross the line.

As a result, once again, we would urge your committee and the House to halt this process as it relates to specific allegations against the PSAC, its officers, members, and staff, and as it relates to an expansion of privilege. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Nycole, thank you for that. Again, I thank you for being here. Before I go to my list, I'd like to make a couple of observations with respect to the nature of this committee.

First of all, this is not a judicial proceeding, and I've said this on a number of occasions. This is a parliamentary committee proceeding. You were not summoned here. You were here in response to the request in your letter to appear. We simply took up your request. I did notice in your letter, when you asked to appear, you mentioned the matter of being able to cross-examine witnesses and that kind of thing, but as this is not a judicial inquiry, witnesses here do not have the right to cross-examine and lead witnesses, and so on. I think it's important that you know that. The witnesses are here to answer questions from the committee.

• 1250

We've provided you with what you called “charges”. They appeared in Hansard. We have the same reference you have seen from Hansard. We're dealing with the two references before us. And you will have seen that although the witnesses are here to answer our questions, we do engage in dialogue. We're trying to get somewhere with this inquiry.

The committee is not bound by the rules of evidence or any rules of procedure that would be applicable in a judicial proceeding. That's a fact; it's not something we've made up. One of the reasons for that, and one of the reasons it's not a judicial proceeding, is that we have no right or power to impose sanctions. Our power is to make a report. That report may contain recommendations to the House of Commons, and then the House of Commons proceeds.

We are focusing on these two particular references. But I can tell from your presentation you've read the transcripts. We are not here now, nor in our previous meeting, to engage in some sort of witch or wizard hunt. I think the tone of our inquiry has been on what we can do to improve things in the future. My colleagues, as always, can overrule me. But, Nycole, that's the sense of the inquiry we're conducting, and I just thought you should know that.

By the way, I listened very carefully and I've looked at the material you've provided to us. Would you care to comment on that?

[Translation]

Ms. Nycole Turmel: Yes, I would like to say something about that. We did in fact ask to appear before your committee given the seriousness of the charge and the risk of a prison term in the case of contempt of court. We believe that that is part of our responsibility as representatives of members of the Alliance. Even if all your committee does is make a recommendation, we have the right to explain our point of view on this issue.

[English]

The Chair: You certainly do, and that's why you're here.

I have Chuck Strahl, Gar Knutson, Marlene Catterall, George Baker, and then Stéphane Bergeron—

Mr. Stephen Jelly (Executive Assistant to the Alliance Executive Committee, Public Service Alliance of Canada): Excuse me, I'd like to make one comment on your introduction, and that is that while we have read much of the testimony before the committee, we haven't had an opportunity to read yesterday's testimony. But in what we have read, the references to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in your deliberations to date have been almost non-existent.

You're reviewing parliamentary privilege, a centuries-old tradition and practice, and we believe that if you did review it in the context of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, some of the procedure you refer to as being parliamentary rather than judicial procedure would be fundamentally altered. Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the bill of rights, and so on, if an allegation results in punitive sanctions such as imprisonment, we would have a right to due process.

Our view is that this process isn't a due process and it doesn't afford us a fair opportunity to have the things heard. But we are here before this process, and we do fully understand the process you're... We don't agree with the process.

The Chair: Thank you for that, Stephen. Your remarks are now part of our record.

Chuck Strahl, and then Gar Knutson.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Thank you, and thank you to the witnesses for appearing.

I was going to make the point about being summoned. I hope you didn't receive a summons to appear here. I hope this was something you wanted to do and that you came to help us with.

I must say this is a very thorough briefing. Considering the short time you've had to prepare, I think there's some very good stuff in here. You've had the advantage of having seen some of the early testimony and you've been able to respond to that. I think that's going to be valuable to the committee. Whether I will agree with it all... I haven't had a chance to go over it in detail, but it looks like it answers many of the questions that have been raised earlier, and I congratulate you for that.

I had a couple of things to say. Part of the testimony yesterday from Mr. Pankiw, who was one of the MPs who brought the original charge to the House, was that, and this is his quote from yesterday's testimony:

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.

He goes on to say—he's answering Mr. Solomon's question—“My concern... is as much for you as... for me”, and it's the bigger issue of accessibility.

I think what the committee is trying to get at is where is the balance between the right of a union to picket, to demonstrate peacefully, and all the things a union has and should have the right to do in Canada, and that ancient parliamentary privilege—which is still with us, even if the charter is there—which is the right of members of Parliament to have unfettered access to do their jobs.

• 1255

One of the questions I have for you, to help me understand, is this. In your opinion, are there any buildings, such as Centre Block, that are off limits, or is Centre Block just another parliamentary building and perhaps next time if you want to drive home your point with a picket line you could blockade the doors to Centre Block with the same kind of restrictions—allow members of Parliament through and no one else and so on? Do you consider Centre Block and the House of Commons just other buildings of the precincts?

[Translation]

Ms. Nycole Turmel: Yes, we believe that it is possible to establish a picket line in front of any Parliament building. However, I would like to repeat that we do not prevent members of Parliament from going into the buildings. We ask them to identify themselves and when they have shown us that they are truly members of Parliament, then we open the picket line.

I would also like to point out that several demonstrations take place in front of the Centre Block of Parliament. Some have involved a much larger number of demonstrators and have perhaps prevented you from going into the Parliament buildings. You have perhaps decided to not cross their lines. Similar things have happened in the past.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay. Certainly that has come up in testimony too. Whatever is decided, no one has suggested demonstrations should be restricted on the Hill. Most of us quite enjoy seeing people demonstrate on the lawns of Parliament. It gives a reassurance of free speech and the right to demonstrate.

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.): The opposition does.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: It does a person's heart good to see that demonstration is possible.

Some of our testimony to date has suggested Parliament should be like a court proceeding that doesn't allow picket lines. We were told you can't restrict access to a court proceeding or even have picket lines there because it's too intimidating. People don't like to cross picket lines, so a court says you just can't have them out there because court proceedings must proceed with all the witnesses, workers, and so on.

What about the argument that Parliament should be treated like a court of law? You can demonstrate, but you can't have a picket line because a picket line is a barrier, but it's also a very strong psychological barrier.

[Translation]

Ms. Nycole Turmel: I will begin answering your question and then I will ask Mr. Jelly to follow up on my answer.

We stated very clearly during our presentation that if members of Parliament could not enter Parliament buildings in order to carry out their work, and if Parliament felt that this obstruction was serious enough to prevent it from functioning, then it could, like any other employer, request an injunction. I'll ask my colleague to follow up on that.

[English]

Mr. Stephen Jelly: It's the same part actually. The testimony that was given to you in terms of picketing not being allowed outside of the court house is not entirely accurate. There is no permanent prohibition on picketing outside of a court house. In the case that was referred to, an injunction was sought and granted. The House of Commons has the same right.

We could speculate as to what would happen if the House of Commons went before a court and asked that no picket line be established in front of the doors of the Centre Block, but you have that right. You can seek that injunction in the context of a specific event like the 17th, or you can try to seek it for a longer period of time than that.

The court would assess it in terms of the standards it always uses for injunctions, which is who is harmed the most by granting or not granting the injunction. The specific case of pickets not being allowed outside of the court that was referred to was the result of an injunction preventing picketing.

• 1300

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I find that very interesting. Again that's part of how you can help us with this. This is good information. Obviously we will have to go back to check what we considered to be fact when it was presented to us.

The last point I have is that MPs who testified suggested a picket line or a blockade of any kind at a constituency office should also allow a member of Parliament through in order to do their work. They felt that should be part of the parliamentary privilege. In other words, it shouldn't be restricted just to the House of Commons precincts. But as often happens in a constituency office, someone will throw up a picket line for whatever reason to make their point. They felt members of Parliament should be allowed to cross that as part of their parliamentary duties. Do you think that's reasonable?

[Translation]

Ms. Nycole Turmel: No. As we indicated in our presentation, we do not feel that parliamentary privilege should be extended. Rather, we believe that one should only be able to use it within Parliament, that's all.

We admit that riding offices are work places located in the riding of a member who has been elected. However, the major part of the member's work takes place within Parliament, and that is why we cannot accept that parliamentary privilege be extended. I can't help smiling a little when I think of what most of you may have encountered. It's always pleasant to meet members on their own premises.

[English]

The Chair: Just so you know, I have Gar Knutson, Marlene Catterall, George Baker, Stéphane Bergeron, John Solomon, Yvon Charbonneau, and Gurmant Grewal. I mention the list because it's a long one, so let's keep it moving.

Gar Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Thanks very much, Mr. Chair. My questions will be brief.

I just want to say that I don't consider this a trial. There's no question we're not following the rules of natural justice. It's not a hearing, but at the end of the day we will do a report.

I would like to ask some questions about the facts of that particular day and dispute. Am I right in assuming—you constantly refer back to this—that if a member of Parliament had identified himself or herself, they would have been allowed through the picket line, and your intent was to keep the general public and MPs' staff from going into their buildings?

[Translation]

Ms. Nycole Turmel: The question of privilege was restricted to members of Parliament. As soon as members of Parliament appeared and identified themselves, they could cross the picket line. Furthermore, that is what several of them did, while others decided to walk with the picketers. In my opinion, there weren't any problems.

In terms of knowing exactly what happened, I think that that is the responsibility of the members of the committee. Perhaps you would like to call other witnesses, but what we are presenting today is the position of the members of the Alliance, who claim the right to picket.

[English]

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'm not questioning your right to have a picket line. I'm not talking about rights; I'm just asking about the facts of that particular day. Was it your intent to prevent members of the general public and staff of members of Parliament from entering, for example, the Confederation Building? That's a simple straightforward question. We could debate how limited privilege is. I just want to know this for the record. Maybe you could just answer that directly.

Mr. Stephen Jelly: As we said in our submission, the purpose of a picket line is to disrupt the employer's operations. That was the intent of the picket line on February 17.

Mr. Gar Knutson: So it was your intent to prevent members of—

Mr. Stephen Jelly: I'm getting to that.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Okay.

Mr. Stephen Jelly: The question as to whether or not it was our intent to keep people, other than members of Parliament, out of the work locations is more difficult to answer. First of all, none of us was there. But it's more difficult to answer in the sense—

Mr. Gar Knutson: Some of us were there.

Mr. Stephen Jelly: —that it is not necessarily a legitimate role of a picket line. We weren't there so we can't say if that in fact happened. However, it's clear that a picket line will delay people. It will prevent people from accessing the work location in what they might normally consider to be a timely way. There's an interrelationship between the picketing people and the police, in terms of how a picket line will normally operate, and it's been referred to in your committee before. In some cases they'll say people have to wait around for five minutes—sometimes it's ten minutes—before they can cross the picket line.

• 1305

The other thing is a lot of people will choose not to cross picket lines, for a variety of reasons. One of the reasons that's been put before your committee is that people feel intimidated by picket lines and won't cross them. Some people clearly feel that, and we refer to that in our brief. Other people don't cross as a matter of principle. So without knowing the specifics of the people who came into contact with the picket line and turned themselves away or were turned away, it's very difficult to answer in a precise—

Mr. Gar Knutson: My question is about your intent. It's not about the mindset of—

Mr. Stephen Jelly: Okay. I answered about the intent.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Can I finish? I've allowed you to finish.

My question is not about the mindset of my staff or the mindset of the cafeteria worker on the eighth floor of the Confederation Building. My question is very simple and very direct. Was it your intent to prevent people from entering the building? If a member of the general public had come for a constituency appointment with their member of Parliament, would it have been your intention not to hand them a pamphlet and give them information, delay them by five minutes, or engage them in some sort of dialogue, but to prevent them from entering the Confederation Building? It's a simple question.

A voice: The Wellington Building.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I was in Confed when...

[Translation]

Ms. Nycole Turmel: I would answer once again that the government, as an employer, as the same rights and is subject to the same restrictions as any other employer. The goal of a picket line is to slow affairs. It therefore goes without saying that the effect of a picket line is to cause delays. In our presentation, we referred to the buses. It also goes without saying that picket lines may intimidate people and these people may end up requesting police assistance to cross them. They still have the choice to cross or not to cross them. Finally, the purpose of picket lines is to slow work down and to show that one has a legal right to strike.

[English]

Mr. Gar Knutson: But how long did you want to delay people from entering the building?

[Translation]

Ms. Nycole Turmel: This was a strategic rotating strike that was targeting Parliament on that day. The following day, another area was the target. If you would like to know for how long they were planning on causing delays or in fact did cause delays, you'll have to put that question to them.

[English]

The Chair: Very briefly, Gar.

Mr. Gar Knutson: So it was your intent to delay them by one day.

Ms. Nycole Turmel: That's not what I said. I said—

Mr. Gar Knutson: Can I finish?

Ms. Nycole Turmel: Yes.

Mr. Gar Knutson: If a general member of the public had shown up at the door, they wouldn't have been told to come back in 10 minutes. They wouldn't have been told to stay there. They wouldn't have been told anything at all. They would have just found, from their own experience, that there wouldn't have been a picket line there the next day, so they could have crossed without any obstruction, intimidation, or whatever words you want to use.

If it wasn't one day, why don't you say clearly, for the record, how long you intended to delay a general member of the public from having access to their member of Parliament?

[Translation]

Ms. Nycole Turmel: I'm going to answer as clearly as I did earlier on: I cannot answer your question simply because we do not know. We know that the picketers are there, but we do not know how long they plan to stay, four hours, two hours or a half hour. That is part of their strategy. That is always decided at the time the picketing occurs.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Marlene Catterall, George Baker, and then Stéphane Bergeron.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Nycole, I don't think I've ever had to say this to you before, but I think the argumentation between sections 26 and 38 on what kind of picket line this was is confusing, to say the least, and not your usual clear thinking and clear expression.

Let me ask you some questions here. You claim this was a strike picket line, not an information picket line, not a secondary picket line. To quote both you and Steve, if that is the case, the purpose is to disrupt the employer's operation.

The House of Commons is not the Government of Canada; it is therefore not the employer against whom you are on strike. That's why I have a hard time following your argument.

• 1310

You say in a couple of sections here that the buildings that were picketed do house government workers who were in a legal strike position and who were actually on strike on February 17. I'd be really interested in knowing—because the Confed Building, the West Block, the East Block, and the Centre Block were all being picketed—what federal government employees work in those buildings and were on strike on that day, because to my knowledge there were none and there are none on strike.

[Translation]

Ms. Nycole Turmel: We represent members who work in Parliament, who work mainly for the Department of Public Works and are responsible for building maintenance. The government is their employer and this is where they work.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: The government is their employer, but the buildings they work in do not belong to their employer.

Ms. Nycole Turmel: However, the people responsible for maintenance work within those premises. When there's a labour conflict, often the place where members work is chosen as a strategic location to establish a picket line.

[English]

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Okay. I'm sorry, but I do not accept that you were picketing the property and the workplace of your employer, because the House of Commons is not the federal government. The way I compare it is that if UAW were on strike against General Motors, it could not picket Ford Canada except as a secondary or an information picket line. It could not picket General Motors car dealerships except as a secondary or information picket line.

Your argument here does not persuade me differently from that. If you have anything further to offer me, I'd be pleased to hear it.

Can I go to another point of view here? Where's the onus here? It seems to me that if one is picketing, it's the obligation of the people on the picket line, the union, particularly the picket captain, to know what the picket line may do and what it may not do. In this case one of the things that it may not do is impede members of Parliament from attending to their parliamentary duties.

Were the picket captains informed of that? Were the people on the picket line informed of that, to the best of your knowledge?

[Translation]

Ms. Nycole Turmel: Yes, members who were part of the picket line were aware of that because that is part of their training. They know that members who identify themselves can cross the picket line.

[English]

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Well, okay, so they were informed that they didn't have the right to prevent members of Parliament from crossing the picket line. Shouldn't the onus then, before attempting to stop someone from crossing that picket line, be on the picketers or the picket captain to determine whether that is a member of Parliament or not?

Mr. Stephen Jelly: I can answer that by citing another case that was, I believe, laid before your committee. I'm not precisely sure of the date, but I think it was 1980, when the RCMP prevented some members of Parliament from accessing the House of Commons for a short period of time, for security measures, as a dignitary was coming in. If I recall from the testimony that was put before your committee, in that case the Sergeant-at-Arms and/or some other people, officers of the House, were outside and pointed out to the RCMP who were members of Parliament so they could cross.

It's conceivable that the onus rests with the picket line or the picket people, but it's very difficult for them to identify all members of Parliament unless they're identified to them either by the individuals concerned or by somebody else.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: But didn't they at least ask the question?

I know you want to move on, Mr. Chair, so this will be my last question.

The Chair: Briefly.

Mr. Stephen Jelly: I missed that.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Shouldn't they at least ask the question, knowing that they have no right to stop a member of Parliament?

• 1315

Mr. Stephen Jelly: I think that would be fair.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Thank you.

The Chair: George Baker.

Mr. George S. Baker (Gander—Grand Falls, Lib.): First of all, I want to thank the witnesses for an excellent brief and a well researched brief. What more can I say on the brief?

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that the cause of the Public Service Alliance of Canada against regional rates of pay in our area is something I certainly support one hundred percent. Therefore it brings up a very interesting question as it relates to this committee. The committee will have to make recommendations.

Now, there was expert evidence before this committee that what you're saying is wrong. I mean, expert legal opinion came before this committee and said things completely different from what you're saying. They said this was a third-party affair, didn't they?

I want to ask you then, because I'm only going to get one question, why you think that is. Secondly, if the committee were to recommend, as has been suggested, that no picket lines be allowed to be established and that the line be even broadened, would the House of Commons have to pass a law making it illegal to have an information picket line before any such lines could be broadened? That's number one, because you're saying it's legal.

That is the main question, because the committee has to make a decision. Would they have to change the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act to say it's completely illegal to have an information picket line? Why do you think the expert testimony before this committee was so far off base?

Just to make a final observation on the regional rates, the reason I said regional rates of pay is because there are people who feel very strongly about this issue right here in the House of Commons. Right in this room there are people who belong to your union and who are very angry that they don't get paid as much as the same employees in the Senate who are messengers and who do all sorts of jobs.

So there are regional rates of pay right here on Parliament Hill. One region is over there in the Senate and the other region is here in the House of Commons, and everybody here gets paid less. So the regional rates of pay issue is very strong with these people, and information picket lines that are allowed in the place of the employer in this case—the Public Service Alliance of Canada... The employer is the House of Commons.

The Chair: I'm not interrupting you. I'm really enjoying this. Please carry on.

Mr. George Baker: Thank you.

The Chair: Is it relevant?

Mr. George Baker: Well, Mr. Chairman, it's very relevant because picket lines were set up, and here we are saying, are we going to make it illegal for picket lines to be on Parliament Hill?

The Chair: Okay, I was just hinting that you might be—

An hon. member: Nobody said that.

Mr. George Baker: What do you mean, nobody said this?

The Chair: Go ahead. It's good stuff.

Mr. George Baker: Anyway, did you get my question?

Ms. Nycole Turmel: Yes.

Mr. George Baker: Okay.

[Translation]

Ms. Nycole Turmel: I'm going to begin by sincerely thanking you for having raised the question of regional rates of pay because that is the crux of the labour conflict, especially in the Atlantic region, where our members and those who perhaps voted for you truly feel that way. I'll give the floor to Mr. Jelly.

[English]

Mr. Stephen Jelly: First of all, with regard to experts, the chair did say, when he identified one witness, that this person is here as an expert. Both of the experts who have provided you with testimony and information on this matter—I believe both of them—were more reluctant to be identified as experts in the labour relations or the labour law areas than they were in the other areas. Quite frankly, it's not hard for us to see why.

Neither of them was sure whether it was a legal strike or not. One of them said you can't have an information picket line for House employees, which is fundamentally wrong. And there are other aspects of their testimony on labour aspects of this case that are questionable at best. We would have assumed that since they identified their deficiencies in that area, the committee would have invited somebody with more expertise on some of those questions to appear before it. Since it hasn't, we'll do our best.

• 1320

In terms of your specific question, would you have to pass a law to make it illegal for an information picket line, my guess and assessment is yes, you would have to make an amendment to the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act that specifically made it illegal to have an information picket line. But why would you want to? In no sense would an information picket line result in any of the kinds of situations that are alleged to have happened here. An information picket line is precisely that: you come to the picket line, the picketers give you some information, and hopefully they're trying to enlist your support.

In our view, there would be no reason to make an information picket line illegal in the first instance. In the second instance, it still wouldn't solve your problem, because the people who were picketing were not covered by that piece of legislation. If you then want to change all labour legislation in Canada to say that no one can picket on Parliament Hill, that's opening a door far wider than I think you would even want to.

The Chair: George.

Mr. George Baker: That's fine, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Before we proceed to Stéphane Bergeron, John Solomon, and Yvon Charbonneau, I'd like somebody to move a motion. We were asked whether the material that we have before us could be included as part of the official record. As Marlene has already been referring to it chapter and verse, this is what the motion is:

That the Committee append to this day's Minutes of Proceedings, the written presentation of the Public Service Alliance of Canada concerning the two Questions of Privilege referred by the House on February 17 and 18, 1999 as Appendix PRHA-01.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): I so move.

The Chair: Just for your information, colleagues, we have it in electronic form in both English and French.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Stéphane Bergeron, and then John Solomon.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): I'm feeling rather confused.

First I would like to thank you for the quality of your brief; it is comprehensive, well structured and very articulate. However, I am somewhat surprised by the tone of your brief.

You spend a lot of time criticizing the committee's procedures as well as parliamentary privilege, that you call archaic, instead of showing us that there was no breach of privilege. I'm quite concerned about that. In your analysis of this committee's proceedings or work, perhaps you've had the opportunity to note that I am quite sensitive to fundamental rights of association, to strike or to demonstrate, but also to parliamentary privilege.

Must I remind you that parliamentary privilege is included in the Constitution of Canada and that therefore it cannot be denigrated, just as we, in the context of our work, must not denigrate the fundamental rights of expression, association, freedom, striking and demonstrating?

Let us go back to the two questions that have been referred to us. During this committee's work, each one of us has formed an opinion about these two questions of privilege. Mr. Reynolds' referral involves including or excluding staff of members of Parliament in the concept of parliamentary privilege. Whatever the decision we make, we could not claim to be able to apply it retroactively to the events that are under consideration.

• 1325

Let us come back to Mr. Pankiw's question of privilege. He claims that he was physically prevented from entering the buildings to carry out his work.

In your arguments, you state that no complaint was made to the police regarding molestation and you conclude that no assault occurred because there was no complaint nor was there an arrest following these events. You seem to be drawing a parallel between criminal law and parliamentary privilege, when these are two completely different things.

In fact, members of the Alliance could have been found guilty of criminal offences and also of breach of parliamentary privilege; these are two completely different things.

Under point 63, you refer to this conflict between the fundamental freedom of association, of speech, to strike and to demonstrate, and you conclude that much of what has been said by the members of this committee has been clouded by a misunderstanding of labour law in Canada.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that I feel that your own words demonstrate a lack of understanding on your part of parliamentary privilege, but I would like to put a specific question to you. In the case of Mr. Pankiw, in what way do you feel that you breached or did not breach parliamentary privilege?

Ms. Nycole Turmel: I understand your fear and apprehension with respect to the contents of our document. However, it is very clear to us that these accusations are enormous and we must explain our position on these events to you, and also on the right to strike and to establish the picket line. The mandate of the committee is to consider the complaint of contempt of court and its recommendations will have a very big impact on us. The measures that you recommend will have consequences not only for the leaders of the Alliance but also for its members, in terms of their right to picket.

Now, to answer your question regarding the member's case, we mentioned in our brief that members who approach the picket line and identify themselves were able to cross it. The choice to cross a picket line or not is an individual choice. We thus responded to your expectations and protected your right of parliamentary privilege.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I understand and I'm sensitive to what Ms. Turmel says about the Alliance being aware of the potential consequences of a recommendation that this committee would make to the House of Commons and of a possible offence of breach of parliamentary privilege. What I do not understand as well, is that you are criticizing the relevance and validity of parliamentary privilege and parliamentary procedures rather than centering your arguments on an established fact, which is the existence of parliamentary privilege as guaranteed by the Constitution.

To come back to Mr. Pankiw's case, there was thus a very clear order maned and communicated to the members participating in the picketing to not obstruct the way of members of Parliament going into their workplace.

Ms. Nycole Turmel: I'm sorry, I was—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'll repeat my question.

Ms. Nycole Turmel: Yes, please.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: If I understood your answer correctly, members of the Alliance who were involved in this demonstration had received a very clear order to not obstruct the way of members of Parliament going to work.

Ms. Nycole Turmel: Yes, members had been informed of the privilege of members of Parliament. They were told that if members of Parliament identified themselves, then they must be allowed to cross the line so that they could go to work. That is why, in the case of the bus, it was indicated that a check was made and members were asked to identify themselves.

I would like to come back to your comments to the effect that the Alliance's approach is to criticize the committee and its work, as well as the link between criminal law and the work of this committee.

• 1330

Our criticism—and the chairman mentioned this—is that we asked to do a presentation to you to explain our rights, but the committee has not authorized us to cross-examine those people who have appeared before you. That is what we have a problem with.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I have read your document and in light of what you told us earlier on, it is my impression that you criticize us for much more than that.

Let us get back to the case in question. We could go on for ever about the nature and the relevance of parliamentary privilege, but the fact is that it exists and you recognize that because you gave an order regarding that to your members. One can criticize it ad nauseam, but the fact remains that it is guaranteed under the Constitution just as those freedoms are that we were referring to earlier on. Thus you gave a very clear order to your members. Am I to understand, as I said yesterday, that the case of Mr. Pankiw may in fact have been a most unfortunate misunderstanding?

[English]

The Chair: Relatively briefly, if you could.

[Translation]

Ms. Nycole Turmel: I think that question should be put to the member rather than to me in order that he may explain his attitude, the manner in which he appeared and the way he introduced himself.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: He has already given us his point of view and we will consider his testimony. I would like to know how you interpret the facts. In light of the facts provided, of the order given to your members and of the answers that Mr. Pankiw provided to the committee, that you no doubt have had an opportunity to see, do you feel that this is simply a misunderstanding, an unfortunate disagreement, rather than a deliberate attempt on the part of the Alliance and its members to breach parliamentary privilege?

[English]

Mr. Stephen Jelly: I don't think we actually can say whether it was a misunderstanding or not. If our presentation showed you some disrespect to parliamentary privilege, it wasn't our intention. But there is a competition or a conflict, not between parliamentary privilege per se but how it's enforced in this case that makes it a little difficult for us. The problem is that questions such as when the member says that he was “molested” in the way the word has been used—

The Chair: We made it clear.

Mr. Stephen Jelly: No, I understand that. That's why I put it in quotes and said “in the way the word has been used”. He says that, somebody else says something else, some people on the picket line say something else, and the police say something else. Those are questions that a court is able to resolve or to address, but I don't see how a parliamentary committee can resolve those or address them, because you don't have the same processes and the same rights for people to make their case. Whether it was a misunderstanding or not, we can't answer that question. Whether our people were in the wrong, the member was in the wrong, or it was a misunderstanding, it is simply impossible for us to answer. That's a type of question that can only be answered, in my view, and I think in our view, through the normal processes that have been established to answer that type of question. This isn't one of those processes.

The Chair: Thanks.

John Solomon, Yvon Charbonneau, Gurmant Grewal, Bob Kilger.

Mr. John Solomon: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I would like also to congratulate Madame Turmel and company for the great presentation. Like George Baker, I think there are not many things we can say, other than that it's an excellent presentation, very comprehensive.

It raises a number of questions, in particular with some of the advice that we've received from our legal counsel in terms of setting up picket lines and so on, and whether there's a permanent prohibition on establishing picket lines in our precinct. So I appreciate this view. It's something we can use in our deliberations.

Also like Mr. Baker, I would like to put a good word in for the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, schedule III, which has not been adopted by the House of Commons. This is an act that basically protects Parliament Hill employees in the health and safety area. This is something that's very important to all employees on the Hill. I think it has to be looked at by the government in terms of giving it royal assent and making it active on this precinct. We're the only precinct in the country that doesn't have any regulations on health and safety protecting our employees. So I join Mr. Baker by putting that word in, as well as the fact that we think the wage disparities have to be resolved.

• 1335

I would like to get your comment, if I could, regarding the specifics. I know this is not a court of law, but we've had one witness say he was molested and he was assaulted. He had to run through a line like a football player—

The Chair: John, I'll make the same point. At the very first meeting we made the point, and I asked it myself, if “molestation” was used in some very specific, legal or parliamentary sense, so I—

Mr. John Solomon: I appreciate that, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: You're entitled to carry on, but as long as that's on the record.

Mr. John Solomon: That's fine. I appreciate that, but Mr. Pankiw, in his response to the question as to what exactly transpired, felt there was an effort by the picketers to stop him, and the term he used was that these were hooligans and they were preventing him from going through the line. So just for my own information, there has to be another side to this story, as there is to every story, and I'm wondering if you could give us a perspective as to what your understanding of this issue was, whether there was some violence used to prohibit him from crossing the line.

[Translation]

Ms. Nycole Turmel: Once again, I'll have to repeat our position; nobody here today was present on the picket line. Because of that, I cannot answer your question and tell you whether or not the member was molested or had other problems. All we know is that the member made a statement in the House and that the committee is considering the issue. Therefore, I cannot answer as a witness, because I was not on the picket line.

[English]

Mr. John Solomon: The reason I asked that question is because we have been asked to review this matter because of the allegations of Mr. Pankiw, and I find it quite frustrating, Mr. Chair, that we are not able to get a balanced view of what exactly happened. I don't deny that what Mr. Pankiw said was accurate, but that's one view. We have been instructed as a committee to review that particular situation and to come forward with some recommendations, but I don't know how we can continue to do this as a committee unless we have some other perspective on the issue, whether it's from the police... And the police haven't pressed charges. They were there. Mr. Pankiw agrees with that, as do the PSAC representatives, so I'm not sure whether we're wasting our time here as a committee by continuing to pursue this issue. We were asked to do it because a member felt his privilege was breached; it's a one-sided approach and we're not getting another—

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): He's entitled to that, John.

Mr. John Solomon: Certainly he's entitled to that. My point is that I don't think we're being very comprehensive. I don't think our process here, although it is a member of Parliament's committee of the House of Commons and we can do whatever we feel is appropriate, is fully democratic and fully transparent.

The Chair: My only comment would be that we meet, as you know, with Hill security tomorrow and that might shed some light on this matter. Also, I would remind us all that there are two referrals here, not just the one.

John, carry on. You still have the floor.

Mr. John Solomon: That's it.

The Chair: Okay. Yvon Charbonneau, Gurmant Grewal, and then Bob Kilger.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would also like to congratulate the union representatives for having succeeded in putting together such a comprehensive document in such little time. I must say as a preamble that if a procedure such as this one had been in place in Quebec over the past 25 or 30 years, I would have spent more time before a parliamentary committee such as this one than at the bargaining table.

I appreciate the fact that the union representatives are not trying to avoid the issue and acknowledge in paragraph 23 that yes, there was picketing and that even if they were not on the premises as leaders, they take responsibility for the picketing.

You also state that this was not an information picket line but rather a picket line to slow work down.

In fact, a picket line can be impermeable. When people are told to let nobody pass, a certain category of picketers using certain equipment is chosen, which makes it more difficult to cross the picket line. Less discussion takes place.

• 1340

A Member: That' very democratic.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Sometimes certain means have to be used in order to obtain reasonable offers. One can't always consider problems that aren't problems in nice little discussions around tables.

If I understood correctly, the order or directive that was provided was that if members appeared and identified themselves as being members, they could then cross the line without any problem. Is that correct?

Ms. Nycole Turmel: Yes.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Therefore, the line was not exactly impermeable with respect to members.

Who else could have crossed the line? Could members' staff who identified themselves as such also have the right to cross?

Ms. Nycole Turmel: Normally, when faced with a picket line, people who do not have the right to strike usually ask the police to help them or their supervisor. They phone their supervisor who's inside the building and they ask that person to open the picket line so that they can cross and enter the workplace.

In this case, all I can say was that the order had been given that members had the right to cross the line because they had a privilege. In terms of the other cases, I must repeat that only the picketers can answer that question. To what point was that line impermeable? I cannot answer that.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I hope that you will continue to demonstrate such transparency. We will not beat around the bush forever. There were members of Parliament there. I imagine that senators arriving at the picket line would have had the same right.

Ms. Nycole Turmel: Yes.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: And you were not unaware that there would be staff of members of Parliament.

Ms. Nycole Turmel: No.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Fine. There are other types of staff around the House of Commons, but the staff of members—

Ms. Nycole Turmel: As I mentioned, the purpose is to disrupt operations. I cannot say how long the picket line was to stay in place, but the purpose was to slow down the work.

At some places, employers decided to close the workplace for the day, others helped their staff to get into the buildings. In that sense, the purpose was to slow things down.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: My question, Mr. Chairman, relates to certain paragraphs in the union argument calling for restrictions to parliamentary privilege, specifically paragraphs 57, 80 and 81. Several paragraphs deal with this idea of restricting parliamentary privilege.

Could you tell us whether, in your opinion, "restricting" might have meant having the right to prevent members of Parliament from entering the buildings? Is that really what you mean by restricting parliamentary privilege? Is that the direction in which you want to go?

Ms. Nycole Turmel: Yes.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Yes and no; it depends on which language you're speaking.

Ms. Nycole Turmel: Yes and no.

[English]

I'll ask Stephen to answer that because...

[Translation]

No means that it is not the objective.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I would like you to elaborate. I do not want simply a yes or a no. I would like you to tell me what you are hoping to achieve when you use words like "restrict parliamentary privilege". Do you mean clarify it? If that was the case, you would have said so. You use the word "restrict". What are you aiming at there?

Ms. Nycole Turmel: No. Our objective, where parliamentary privilege is concerned, is not to take away the members' right to do their work. That is a privilege that is recognized and that we recognize. I recognize that there are certain privileges, and I will ask Stephen Jelly to elaborate on that.

[English]

Mr. Stephen Jelly: I think the word in the brief is “curtailed”, and it's perhaps not the best word to use—“restrict and curtail”. What essentially we believe should happen is, leaving aside the specific parliamentary privileges that exist, in terms of the process by which those parliamentary privileges are adjudicated and addressed when they come into contact with situations like this picket line and allegations are made against us, we believe that process needs to be revisited and that the rights of privilege should be curtailed in that regard. In other words, rather than have a member stand up and make an allegation and we have to defend it in this kind of forum, it gets defended in a more normal forum in the sense of judicial fairness and so on.

• 1345

It's clear from what people have said that you don't view this as a court, and it isn't a court, but the bottom line is that the allegations that have been made against our union and some of its members and staff would normally be the type of thing that would be heard in a court of law. If that's the case, then we would have a right to expect, we think, the normal rules of judicial fairness to prevail, and they don't prevail here.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Do you mean, then, that you would like to restrict the ability of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to deal with these issues, or do you mean that you want to restrict parliamentary privilege?

I understand that you object to the problems we are talking about being dealt with by this committee. That is clear, but it does not necessarily mean that steps should be taken to restrict parliamentary privilege. Those issues can be discussed in another forum. Your submissions suggest that you would like to see parliamentary privilege restricted.

[English]

The Chair: Respond to that briefly, if you could, please.

Mr. Stephen Jelly: Just very quickly, part of your privilege is the way in which the allegations are assessed and dealt with, and that is part of your privilege. A member has the right to stand up in his place and say X, Y, and Z, and then there's a process that's followed. That process is a part of your privilege, and in that sense we think there should be a restriction placed on or a change made to the process. Since the process is a part of your privilege, yes, it is curtailing or restricting the privilege, but not the specific privilege you have to go about your business and so on, according to the way it has operated for centuries.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: In conclusion, I would like you to think about the points made by those who say that the contribution of members' staff is an integral part of the members' privilege. I would also like you to think about the equally widespread notion that union leaders also need their co-workers on a day-to-day basis to work effectively. Few can claim to be self-sufficient. People always have a team around them.

[English]

The Chair: Merci, Yvon.

I have two more people on my list, along with the chair. Then I'll be asking you if you have anything else to say in conclusion.

So it's Gurmant Grewal, Bob Kilger, and then the chair. Gurmant, you're on.

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

Through you, I would like to thank the witnesses. I think the report is good, but I can't necessarily agree with the whole report.

What we are debating here today is not an MP versus PSAC. What we are debating here is an MP and the violation of a member of Parliament's privileges. I just wanted to make that clear.

It was mentioned by Ms. Turmel that she couldn't explain exactly what happened because she was not present, and no one at the table could explain what happened exactly, so what we are hearing is a second-hand experience, not a first-hand experience. I don't know if this report is based on the first-hand experience or the second-hand experience.

In your paragraph 39 you mentioned that the member of Parliament's allegation was not substantiated by the actions of the on-site police officers or any of the witnesses to the event. I would like to make clear here that we heard from the member of Parliament, and, as I understand it, he didn't formally lodge any complaint with the police, so the police will not be able to substantiate any claims. So this has absolutely no meaning. I don't see any substance in this matter that the action was not substantiated by the witnesses or by police.

• 1350

Through you, Mr. Chairman, have you conducted any inquiry that will testify to what you are saying here?

Mr. Stephen Jelly: After the events on February 17 and after they were raised in Hansard, we had conversations with some of the people who were on the picket line. We also had a conversation with the police.

In our view, and I'll be really clear about this, the fact that the police didn't lay any charges tends to support the view that no assault took place on the picket line. I've been on many picket lines, Ms. Turmel has been on many picket lines, as have some of the people around the table, and violent activity on the picket line normally draws a pretty immediate and reactive response from the police. It didn't happen in this instance, and, in our view, that would tend to substantiate the fact that the allegation didn't happen.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Let me make it clear. I didn't argue whether or not an assault took place. My point is that since no formal complaint was lodged, the police were unable to substantiate whether or not an assault took place because the matter was not investigated by police either. That's my point.

When we talk about a fundamental right to strike versus parliamentary privileges, I heard a few minutes ago that members of Parliament will have access to their offices and that you respect that. I think from a broader point of view that's how you defined the parliamentary privileges, that members should have access to the parliamentary precinct.

On the other hand, with regard to staff members or the people who are going to have meetings with them, from my point of view, probably it will also be a violation of members' privileges if their staff is not there. When I'm in the House for something other than voting, I'm just like a soldier on the battlefield who is without a gun. Where the staff members are quite essential, I think there is a need to redefine parliamentary privileges. I think this report took into consideration only one fact, that is, it's only the member who should have access. Am I right in saying that?

Mr. Stephen Jelly: Yes, and expert testimony that has been put before your committee tends to support the view that staff aren't covered by privilege at the moment, and if you want to cover them, you'll have to extend that privilege. We make that point. But that's the evidence that was given to you by the experts you called, that at present parliamentary privilege doesn't extend to staff.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: All right. Mr. Chair, I'm keeping in mind the short time we have, and I'll just ask some very quick questions

The Chair: As far as I'm concerned, we have a little bit of time. I know the House is due to start, but we have a little bit of time. Go ahead.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Since this is a second-hand experience you are talking of here, why did the witnesses choose not to bring someone along who was actually present there? Did they deliberately leave them out?

Ms. Nycole Turmel: No, we didn't.

[Translation]

They were not really excluded. We thought that the committee, if it wanted to hear witnesses, would be responsible for that and could do it.

Second, we are here on behalf of all members of the union. As I mentioned, you can always invite those particular witnesses if you would like to hear them.

[English]

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Wouldn't it be appropriate for you to bring someone to improve the efficiency? Why did you choose not to bring them along?

[Translation]

Ms. Nycole Turmel: First of all, we decided not to bring witnesses for the simple reason that we gave at the outset: there was no opportunity to cross-examine them.

Second, as leaders, we represent all members of the Alliance and some of those members are presently on strike. So the committee is free to ask other witnesses to appear here.

[English]

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Chair—

The Chair: Very briefly, Gurmant.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Yes, very briefly, I'll just make a comment. Maybe you will not have the opportunity to ask your questions, but probably the members around this table will have the opportunity to ask questions of the people who were directly involved or who witnessed the situation in order to get the first-hand experience.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Bob Kilger, and then the chair.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

Thank you, Ms. Turmel, and thanks to your colleagues for being here with us today and for preparing this submission that represents your duties so well.

I do think, however, that we have a dilemma because we necessarily wish to maintain and defend our parliamentary or any other privileges and rights. You, on the other hand, are defending and maintaining the rights of those that you represent.

• 1355

Both sides recognize that parliamentary privilege exists. Both sides agree that the workers have rights. I am sorry that my colleague Mr. Solomon has left. He said that our participation today was somewhat less than democratic, which I absolutely reject. I will come back to it when he is here again. I am sorry that he did not stay to hear your whole testimony.

I would like to briefly ask you whether what you are looking for is the status quo. Is there room for improvement on your side and ours, including communication? Are there structural or other means that might enable us to continue to defend and respect both our parliamentary privilege and your privileges and right to free speech, etc., which everyone around this table, have expressed profound respect for, since we are debating this issue that was sent to us by the House?

I would like to know if you have suggestions to make, since we have a duty to make recommendations to the House to improve the situation for both sides.

Ms. Nycole Turmel: That is in our submission. All we want is for the committee to suspend its work in relation to this person's complaints, which were referred to you by the House. That is one part of our demands. In addition, and I will go a little farther than the submission does by saying that if you want to improve labour-management relations, remember that there is a group currently involved in a labour dispute and calling for its rights to be respected. People do not seem to be taking an interest in the negotiations that could enable those people to obtain these salaries and working conditions.

So that would be on of the ways.

Mr. Bob Kilger: I will conclude by saying that I would have liked you to take this opportunity to demonstrate more openness and make suggestions for improving the present situation so that we could avoid further incidents of this type, without bringing up current negotiations.

Ms. Nycole Turmel: I will repeat once again that these members have a legal right to strike. If you are asking us for solutions to the present situation, it seems very clear to us that a picket line is a picket line. People who want to cross the picket line have rights; we recognized this throughout our presentation.

The committee's work is to discuss, look into the question and then make recommendations. In our opinion, the committee should not exist simply because the picket line was there. The person in question chose not to use his right.

Mr. Bob Kilger: All right. I'm sorry.

[English]

The Chair: There are a couple of things, if I could, and as I said, I hope you might have some contributing remarks.

First of all, we've tried to make the point—and you've made the point yourself—that there are these two rights that exist, and I want to say to you, Steve, that I've been told that in the Donahoe case, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that parliamentary privilege is a part of the Constitution as much as the charter.

I only say that because I, for one, think of us here as dealing with both of these rights. I can see that your particular concern is about the right to demonstrate, particularly the right to picket, and you may well see it that when MP witnesses appeared, their particular interest, for the moment, is privilege. But I'd like to think we're both working on two important fundamental rights.

Your written brief and your presentation of course have been particularly useful to us with regard to the right to demonstrate, and particularly the right to picket. I wonder if you would talk to us about it for a few moments.

• 1400

I don't know if you're both lawyers, but one of you certainly is and I am not. As I see it, and everybody accepts it, the right to demonstrate, which is a part of the right to free speech, is absolutely fundamental. I see picketing as a very interesting development of that. It's a very, very special, and by the way, a particularly important form of demonstration. That's the way I see it in my mind.

Instead of standing, let's say, on the lawn, in a group where people can all go around, the idea of picketing, which has evolved over the centuries, is that a line of people forms around a place of work—and I don't want to get into secondary picketing and so on—and to me that line is to impede. It may not be to impede for long. It may be to impede long enough to give a pamphlet, but it is to impede, particularly, I would have thought in the first instance, to impede people who might go and take the work of people inside a workplace.

It's my understanding that this right to picket is a right to impede in some way—I accept that; it is a right to impede in some way—and that anybody, any of us, can cross it. A person who works in there, a member of the union or not, can legally cross it, even though the line is there to impede. What we're talking about is a very special case of that impedance, because we're abutting on this other right, which is the very special constitutional right of parliamentarians. I wonder if you'd talk to me about that, particularly about the right of anyone to go through such a line.

Mr. Stephen Jelly: When I read the transcript, I may have something to disagree with you on, but from the verbal presentation I would say that we would agree with 99% of what you said.

In terms of the specific question of a picket line, I tried to address it earlier. As one of the members of the committee said, picket lines vary. They're different animals at different points in time and at different places. The jurisprudence is, you're right, that anyone can cross a picket line. The difference between a member of Parliament is—

The Chair: It really is quite ironic, isn't it?

Mr. Stephen Jelly: Yes.

The Chair: There is this thing to impede, but anybody—because there are two rights again.

Mr. Stephen Jelly: That's right.

The Chair: There are our individual freedoms and the rights of the union.

Sorry, go ahead.

Mr. Stephen Jelly: So then it becomes a question of how people are impeded and why they're impeded and where they're impeded and so on. If it becomes a problem for the physical location or the person in control of the physical location where the picket line is, they have rights, including the House of Commons, to go and seek an injunction to either stop the picket line or to limit its size or a variety of other things. These include moving it a certain distance away from an entrance to a building.

There's a process that's involved, and the test is whether or not there is more harm done to the union and the members who are on strike or more harm done to the employer by granting or not granting a picket line. That test is as fundamental as many of the other rights involved in the debate that goes on.

In terms of Parliament and its privilege, one would suspect that the courts would look fairly favourably on injunctions that limited, at the least, picketing because of the existence of parliamentary privilege and the potential conflict between one right and the other. I don't believe, personally, and our union doesn't believe, that this decision should be made by one side of the dispute.

The House of Commons right now—you have as members of Parliament, individually and as a collective, the right to make that decision. We don't believe you should have that right, the right to make that decision, exclusively yourself, but because there are competing rights and because there are competing questions, somebody independent should make that decision.

• 1405

That's what the injunctive process is all about; it's fair process. It works in our favour sometimes; it works against us sometimes. It depends on the nature of the line and so on. It exists, it's an avenue that's open to you, the same as every other organization in the country, and it's a fair process. Whereas this process, where members of Parliament as individuals and as a collective body make the decision, is less fair, clearly, from our perspective, and it's not necessary for you to do that, I don't think, in order to protect and defend your privilege, the other existing avenues would do the same thing, and it would be fairer for us.

The Chair: We appreciate that. It is useful to have on the record.

Very briefly, Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I just want to follow up on the chairman's comments, which you agreed with 99%. I'm not sure what you didn't agree with. One was about the right of someone to cross a picket line. On the morning in question the picket captain had a discussion—I haven't talked to the picket captain. This is from Mr. Marleau, or talking to other officials—I can't say Mr. Marleau for sure. The picket captain talked to the police officials and the police apparently were the ones who said no one is crossing this picket line.

In fact, on the morning in question, whether it's a right or not, you couldn't do it because the police talked to the picket captain and they decided that no one is crossing this picket line because—the police actually said no. So in other words, you don't really have the right to cross a picket line if you want. You'll get arrested. As a matter of fact, some of our people were told, “If you try to cross that picket line, we'll arrest you.”

Mr. Stephen Jelly: That question has come up, and we say in our brief that we can't answer it; you'll have to ask the police. There were on-site police officers, and if you want a specific answer to that question, you'll surely have to ask them. We can't answer it.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: My question only is, does the picket captain have that kind of authority to negotiate that kind of thing with the police normally? Does he talk to the police and say, here's the scoop, here's what we'll agree to, you had better do that? How does that work?

Mr. Stephen Jelly: On a lot of picket lines there are discussions and negotiations between the police, and the police say, if you do X, this is the way the picket line will work. It's probably in everybody's interest that there be some discussions between the picketers and the police because it is an environment that can become confrontational, and if discussions and communications limit that confrontation, so much the better. I'm sure there were conversations between the police and the picketers.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I just wondered how that happened. Thank you.

The Chair: Nycole, we're in your hands now.

[Translation]

Ms. Nycole Turmel: I would like to add something to confirm a comment made by Mr. Jelly. On a number of picket lines, we did hear police officers say: "We would advise you not to try to cross the line; people's reactions are unpredictable." I have been on a number of picket lines. I have been involved in a number of labour disputes. In a situation where there is a lot of anger and frustration, reactions may be different. It is very important to point that out.

In closing, I would like to thank the members of the committee for their questions and comments. We appreciated them. We also appreciated the opportunity to appear before the members of the committee and we hope that your work will bear fruit.

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, before I thank our witnesses, I want to first of all remind you that we have a meeting today at 4 p.m. It's not on your regular schedule because it's a semi-official meeting. I hope you will all be there. It's in this room and excellent food will be served.

Ms. Nycole Turmel: We're not invited?

The Chair: No, you're not invited.

Our next official meeting is tomorrow at 11 a.m. On the order of the day are the same questions of privilege. The witness is Major-General Cloutier, Sergeant-at-Arms, and Michel Thivierge, director of security services here on the Hill.

On behalf of the committee, I want to thank Nycole Turmel, Stephen Jelly, and Sarah Bélanger, the silent partner of this group. We want to thank you very much for your contribution.

Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.