PRHA Committee Meeting

Meeting No. 56

Wednesday, March 17, 1999

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs met at 12:29 p.m. this day, in Room 112-N, Centre Block, the Chair, Peter Adams, presiding.

Members of the Committee present: Peter Adams, George Baker, Stéphane Bergeron, Marlene Catterall, Yvon Charbonneau, Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Joe Fontana, André Harvey, Bob Kilger, Gar Knutson, Lynn Myers, John Richardson, John Solomon and Chuck Strahl.

Acting Member present: Gurmant Grewal for Roy Bailey.

In attendance: From the Library of Parliament: James Robertson, Research Officer.

Witnesses: From the Public Service Alliance of Canada: Nycole Turmel, National Executive Vice-President; Stephen Jelly, Executive Assistant to the Alliance Executive Committee; Sarah Bélanger, Executive Assistant to the National Executive Vice-President and to the Regional Executive Vice-Presidents.

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 (see Minutes of Proceedings of Tuesday, March 9, 1999, Meeting no. 52).

Nycole Turmel made a statement and, with the other witnesses, answered questions.

On motion of John Solomon, it was agreed, - 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.

At 2:10 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.

Carol Chafe

Clerk of the Committee

Introduction

1. There are three fundamental questions being addressed by your Committee, namely:

• Did one or all of: the Public Service Alliance of Canada; PSAC National President Daryl Bean; and, individual members or staff of the PSAC, obstruct or molest one or more Members of Parliament by denying access to the parliamentary precincts, and by so doing commit a contempt of Parliament ?
• Is the definition of parliamentary privilege broad enough in the context of modern society ?
• What balance should be struck between the fundamental right to strike and parliamentary privilege ?

2. Each of these questions is addressed in detail in subsequent sections of this submission. For the purpose of this introduction, a few general observations are in order.
3. While your Committee clearly has the authority to find the Alliance, its National President or individual members and/or staff in contempt of Parliament and recommend remedies and disciplinary measures, the process being followed denies the Alliance fundamental justice. While the House of Commons, on your recommendation, has the power to imprison members and/or staff of the PSAC and hold the PSAC in contempt of Parliament for the actions that allegedly occurred on February 17, 1999, we do not have the right to properly defend against the charges.

• We have not been formally notified of the charges against us.
• We have not been afforded the opportunity to cross examine any witnesses that you have called or are likely to call in the future.
• We have not been granted an opportunity to depose witnesses.
• We 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 leveled at us.
• We have no knowledge that you or any officer of the House of Commons has interviewed witnesses, including the Members of the House who claim that they were or were not impeded on February 17, 1999 and the police as well as our picket captains who were on site.

4. It needs to be underscored that all of these restrictions, and more, are contrary to the Charter and the Bill of Rights, both of which provide elements of the frame work for a fair trial and include the presumption of innocence and the right to be informed of specific offences.
5. In short, we have been summoned to appear before a House of Commons Committee that is acting as a court, without providing the Alliance with an opportunity to defend against the charges. But the court is one where you act as judge, jury and prosecutor. In this environment, one can only hope that one or more Committee members at least ask the questions or raise the concerns that would normally be the prerogative of the defence.
6. On February 22, 1999, PSAC National President Daryl Bean wrote to the Committee Clerk and requested an "opportunity to appear before the Committee to present testimony and lead witnesses". In a reply dated March 8, 1999, the Clerk of the Committee invited the PSAC to appear before the Committee during a session that is scheduled to last for an hour and fifteen minutes - which is clearly insufficient time for us to fully respond to the allegations.
7. Not only has the Committee consciously failed to notify the PSAC of the charges against us, but it is operating in a way that denies us an opportunity to defend ourselves. In an oblique and entirely inappropriate response to our request that we be granted an opportunity to "present testimony and lead witnesses", the Committee Clerk wrote:

"I believe that you are familiar with how parliamentary committees operate. As you are aware, witnesses are invited to appear to present their views, opinions or expertise in particular matters, and are then questioned by the members of the committee. Only members are entitled to put questions, and witnesses are not subject to cross-examination by other witnesses.!" (emphasis added)

8. While this way may be an adequate procedure in most instances, it is assuredly not when a Committee is engaged in debate that could result in imprisonment or other punitive sanction against us without a normal trial.
9. While the Alliance will present its side of the story in this forum, we firmly believe that a finding that the Alliance, its National President or one or more of its members and/or staff, obstructed or molested one or more Members of Parliament should be based on a process that does not abrogate the fundamental principles of natural justice.
10. Hence, we are convinced that if you are to continue to examine whether the Alliance was in contempt of Parliament, you should 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, its Officers, members and staff.
11. Your continued deliberations on the second and third questions outlined above are equally problematical from our perspective.
12. The Alliance has been afforded an opportunity to appear before your Committee so as to defend against the allegations that have been leveled against us—albeit in a manner that we believe constitutes a denial of natural justice. Given that we have been granted an opportunity to appear, we will address questions revolving around the scope of the definition of parliamentary privilege, and whether it should be expanded in the context of modern society, and the appropriate balance that should be struck between the fundamental right of the right to strike and parliamentary privilege.
13. But these are questions that should not be addressed, let alone answered, in the charged environment that exists by virtue of the allegations that have been leveled against the Alliance, its Officers, members and staff.
14. Moreover, these are questions that require a broader public debate than that which is possible in the context of the abridged hearing process that your Committee has undertaken.
15. While your Committee has called witnesses and heard testimony from people presumably expert in the history, evolution and application of parliamentary privilege, their understanding of labour law, and the fundamental right of freedom of association as it applies to the right to strike is deficient at best. That this deficiency was articulated before the Committee by the witnesses themselves should surely have been sufficient for you to have expanded your process, and called testimony from witnesses more expert in these areas. If your process more closely mirrored a court proceeding, we can assure you that the Alliance would have challenged the so-called expert testimony in a number of areas.
16. It is also worth noting that conclusions that you may draw from the hearing and in particular "general recommendations and guidance to prevent the occurrence of similar incidents in the future", have an impact, and a substantial one at that, on a number of organizations and institutions in this country that surely have a right to be heard prior to your making recommendations that expand privilege, and thereby further restrict the rights of individuals and organizations in society.
17. In the light of the above, we believe that the process your Committee has embarked upon should be halted.
18. One final comment by way of introduction needs to be made. The language used during parliamentary debate on February 17^th and 18^th, and during your Committee’s deliberations has at best been imprudent. While your Committee has clarified the context that the allegation of "molestation" should be considered in, it has, to date, allowed some equally inflammatory comments to go unchallenged.
19. Words used to describe the events on February 17, 1999 such as "A mob of Hooligans used physical violence and intimidation to stop me"; "The thugs who assaulted me today"; "Intimidation"; "forcibly blocked basically, you don’t go in there" suggest to us that many Members of Parliament have become far too comfortable with immunity they enjoy regarding speech in the House.

20. In the introduction to this submission, we defined the question that is before your Committee with regard to the allegation that the PSAC violated the privilege of one or more Members of Parliament in the following way:

"Did one or all of: the Public Service Alliance of Canada; PSAC National President Daryl Bean; and, individual members or staff of the PSAC, obstruct or molest one or more Members of Parliament by denying access to the parliamentary precincts, and by so doing commit a contempt of Parliament ?"

21. For the record, we should like to make it clear that members of the PSAC 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.
22. It is a fact, as well, that the picket lines in question were attended by members of the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service, and that the police took no action against the striking PSAC members because, we assume, no law was violated in the opinion of the on-site 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 PSAC members involved would have subsequently had an opportunity to defend themselves in a Court proceeding.
23. It is also a fact that while PSAC National President, Daryl Bean, had no direct knowledge that PSAC members who were and are on strike against the government of Canada would picket what are generally understood to be precincts of the House of Commons on February 17, 1999, the fact that the picket line was to be established was known to the official PSAC strike structure. As a result, your Committee can conclude that the picket line was officially sanctioned by the Alliance and its National President.
24. It is a fact, as well, 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.
25. We would also, for the record, like to challenge some of the statements and observations that have been presented to your Committee either as fact, or as background designed to enlighten Committee members with regard to picketing on Parliament Hill—broadly defined.
26. First, the February 17, 1999 picket line was not an information picket line. On the contrary, the picket lines were set up outside of buildings where PSAC members who work for the federal government are in a legal strike position, and were actually on strike.
27. Second, the February 17, 1999 picket line was not a secondary picket lineas has been suggested to your Committee by both Committee members and at least one of your so-called expert witnesses.
28. During her testimony on March 9, 1999, Ms Diane Davidson (General Legal Counsel, Legal Services, House of Commons) provided the Committee with her opinion that:

29. In other words, the House of Commons General Legal Counsel argued that the House was not involved in the dispute, and that the picket line established on February 17^th was a secondary picket line which she defined as:

"The picketing of a third party not concerned by a dispute between the picketers and their employers. It is usually the picketing of a business unionized or non-unionized which has no labour dispute with the union, but which does business with the primary employer who is engaged in the labour dispute with the union, with the objective of inducing breach of contract or interfering with the second employer."

30. While the Public Service Staff Relations Board identifies Treasury Board as the Employer for the workers involved in the picket line that was established by the Alliance outside of a number of buildings that are generally considered to form part of the precincts of Parliament, 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^th. Hence, it is more than a stretch to argue that the picket line was a secondary picket line.
31. One final point with regard to the establishment of picket lines within the precincts of the House of Commons is warranted.
32. During her March 9, 1999 testimony before your Committee, Ms. Davidson stated that:

33. First, there is absolutely nothing in the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act that prevents parliamentary employees from establishing information picket lines. Second, while it is true that parliamentary employees do not have the right to strike, it is wrong to conclude that the denial of that right was related to a concern that the House of Commons would be subject to a picket line. As the Alliance understands the reasons why Parliament chose to deny the right to strike to parliamentary employees—and we were directly and intimately involved in the process—it was to ensure that a labour disruption, internal to the House of Commons, did not prevent Parliament from operating. Moreover, whether adequate or not, the quidproquo for the denial of the right to strike was the imposition of binding arbitration that would ensure a conclusion to the bargaining process.
34. It is more than interesting to know, that while the Public Service Staff Relations Act, the Act that governs collective bargaining for the PSAC members who picketed outside of buildings within what are commonly referred to the parliamentary precinct on February 17, 1999, provides a dispute settlement option. The arbitration option was suspended for three years by Parliament in 1996.
35. A further amendment to the PSSRA extending the arbitration suspension for the next round of public service bargaining was announced in the 1999 federal budget, and will be part of legislation that Members of Parliament will be asked to consider in the immediate future.
36. In the light of the above, while Members of Parliament can rhetorically distance themselves from the labour dispute and create the impression that the dispute and the pickets are someone else’s problem, and that by extension, they are little more than innocent bystanders, they are no such thing.
37. Members of your Committee should understand as well that the House of Commons spent years in an attempt to prevent the unionization of Parliament Hill staff, and used "privilege" as the reason to defend its decision to attempt to deny House employees of the fundamental right of association. This assertion of privilege fell on deaf ears when the Canada Labour Relations Board accepted that it had jurisdiction under the Canada Labour Code, ultimately prompting Parliament to pass legislation allowing unionization of parliamentary staff under the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act.
38. Hence, while bringing the rights of parliamentary employees into the equation may confuse the issues that are before your Committee, the specific legislative regime that applies to parliamentary employees does not offer any useful analogy—as a result, it should be dismissed by your Committee.

39. While one Member of Parliament has publicly indicated that he was assaulted by members of the 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. 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.
40. 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 would urge your Committee to reach the same conclusion.
41. As for the allegation that the same Member of Parliament was denied access to his office, we can only speculate– which is the best that we can do because we have not been given a summary of the charges against us or the evidence in support of them.
42. Having talked to the police and all the PSAC picket captains that were on-site during the picket line, we have concluded that no Member of Parliament was intentionally denied access to his or her office, and that the very different decisions of individual Members of Parliament to cross or not cross our picket line was respected at all times. That said, while Members of Parliament enjoy a right of unrestricted access to the picketed premises that is not extended to other people, they must surely identify themselves before that right can be exercised. We suspect that the member who has made the allegation that his right of access was infringed failed to make it clear to the striking PSAC members or the police that he was in fact a Member of Parliament.
43. Another possible explanation that your Committee must consider if it is to proceed with its deliberations is that the Member attempted to provoke a confrontation when he encountered the picket line. During its deliberations, your Committee has heard that "a picket line triggers in its citizens an almost universal and automatic response not to cross it".
44. While it is true that some people refuse to cross a picket line as a matter of principle, and that some people may well walk away out of fear, it is equally true that a segment of the population will endeavour to cross a picket line no matter what. While people who cross picket lines out of a distorted sense of principle are likely to be a minority within society, it is almost a universal phenomenon that occurs whenever a picket line is established. While we have no statistical evidence to support this speculation, it is likely that a body of the size of the House of Commons with the diversity of political views that are currently represented in the House would have at least one member who would cross a picket line out of principle in an attempt to frustrate the legitimate aspirations of the striking workers.
45. In our opinion, the allegation that a Member of Parliament was denied access to his office cannot be proven on the basis of the factual record. As a result, the conclusions that you draw must go to the credibility of the Member making the allegation as opposed to the credibility of the PSAC picket captains, the police and other Members who have claimed that they were not impeded or denied entry. That being the case, we believe that the motivation of the Member and his views on picket lines in general as opposed to the specific picket line that the PSAC established on February 17^th is germane to your deliberations.

46. While it has been asserted that "Members of Parliament who were turned back from entering buildings by the police who said ‘You should not enter here’ " , we are not in a position to respond directly to this allegation, and believe that the Committee should address the question directly with representatives of the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service. That said, we would say again, that it was surely the responsibility of Members of Parliament to advise either the police or the PSAC picket captains that they were Members and that they have a right to unimpeded access to their office.
47. It has also been alleged that the picket line impeded members’ access because "the busses that trip people around here would not cross access picket lines on the road".
48. Since the busses transport people other than Members of Parliament, one could expect that the PSAC pickets would attempt to delay the busses until such time that it was clear that the busses 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.
49. This goes directly to the question that has been addressed before your Committee as to what violates privilege. Is the delay that would occur before the picket captain ascertains that the person claiming privilege actually enjoys that privilege sufficient to constitute contempt? We think not, particularly in light of the Speaker’s ruling in 1970 that there was no breach of privilege since Members were not denied access but only delayed.

50. 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.
51. As we said in the introduction to this submission, 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 leveled against the PSAC. That said, should the Committee continue along this path, the PSAC would answer no to both of the questions outlined above, and will in fact argue that the existing privilege is archaic and should be substantially eroded.
52. 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.
53. Given the fact that some parliamentary offices are currently located away from Parliament Hill, the question has been raised as to whether the police and security arrangements should be revisited. Again we would answer in the negative.
54. 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 "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". In her March 9, 1999 presentation to the Committee, Ms Davidson stated that the Committee has "to determine if the right to unimpeded access to the House extends not only to Members and Officers of the House but also to any other person who has business with the House, including staff of Members."
55. In testimony before the Committee, Mr J. P. Joseph Maingot (Former Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel - House of Commons) addressed this issue and concluded that privilege extends "historically its Members and Officers of the House". Subsequently in response to a question, Mr. Maingot made it clear that in his view privilege does not extend to the staff of Members when he said "you Members need the staff, but Parliament itself, the House doesn’t need for purposes of privilege".
56. As we have said elsewhere in this submission, parliamentary privilege conflicts with fundamental rights that Canadians enjoy. While a case may be made for maintaining privilege, it is beyond question in our view that privilege should be extended beyond the Members and Officers of Parliament.
57. We would go further in fact and argue that parliamentary privilege should be curtailed because it - as the allegations against the PSAC show - can lead to, and in this case has led to, an unconscionable departure from the concepts of procedural fairness and natural justice. 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.
58. It is also worth noting that the definition of parliamentary privilege and contempt of Parliament are quite broad and are interpreted by the House of Commons - and thus are determined politically rather than legally.
59. 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 legislature. This is particularly the case, where the liberty of an individual(s) 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 today’s society have the ability to initiate internal proceedings against individuals and organizations other than through the courts. This is particularly the case in the context of the Charter.
60. Moreover, the House of Commons has at least the same rights as any other organization, and it could if the circumstances of the February 17^th, 1999 picket line or any other warrant, attempt to secure an injunction either preventing or limiting picket line activity.

61. During your deliberations to date, little comment has been advanced with regard to the Charter. In fact the only substantive comment came from Ms Davidson who stated that "peaceful picketing contains an element of expression protected by section 2 (b) of the Charter".
62. While the effect of the Charter on the penal jurisdiction of Parliament is untested, it is our contention that privilege is not exempt from the Charter since all constitutional power is subject to review with regard to the exercise of that power. As a result, and as we have already said, the exercise of parliamentary privilege should not deny us our constitutional right to a fair trial.

What balance should be struck between the fundamental right to strike and parliamentary privilege ?

63. The third question that we believe your Committee should address is the balance that should be struck between the fundamental right to strike and parliamentary privilege. While this question has been addressed by some members of your Committee, much of what has been said has been clouded by a misunderstanding of labour law in Canada.
64. Despite this, it would appear 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, they appear to be concerned that the exercise of privilege not result in other rights being trampled.
65. In light of these observations, the Alliance should like to provide your Committee with a more substantial appreciation of labour law and how we see parliamentary privilege infringing the rights of all PSAC members and indeed all Canadian workers.
66. Before doing so, however, we should put the picket line that was established by the Alliance on February 17^th, 1999 into proper context.
67. Our understanding of some of the testimony that has been advanced during Committee deliberation indicates that some Committee members and witnesses are confused as to the nature of the picket line that was established and the role that picket lines serve in labour disputes.
68. In testimony before your Committee, Ms Davidson said that "it is important for the Committee to determine if the strikers were otherwise exercising a legal right in the context of the labour dispute". The incontrovertible answer to this question is yes. Having fulfilled our obligations under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, the Alliance was in a legal strike position on December 15^th, 1998 and exercised that right on January 18, 1999. This fact, coupled with the fact that the Alliance membership that was in a legal strike position on February 17^th, included PSAC members who work in the buildings under what are commonly referred to as the parliamentary precinct, should be sufficient to indicate to your Committee that the picket lines were both legal and primary.
69. Hence, unless otherwise instructed by a court of competent jurisdiction, the Alliance believes and maintains that it had a legal right to picket the buildings in question. While this runs counter to some of the opinion that has been imparted to your Committee by Ms Davidson and others, it has been supported by the Speaker who, according to Mr Maingot’s testimony before your Committee, concluded that the impact of a 1980 strike by Translators was not a breach of privilege because it was a legal strike. Mr Maingot went on to say that:

70. 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, members of the Committee need to know, that the purpose of a picket line is more than a vehicle to provide information—or to inform people to use the word of one Committee member.
71. A picket line is the vehicle that is legally used by workers who are engaged in strike activity to inconvenience and put as much economic pressure as is possible on the employer. The right of a union to engage in picket line activity for the purposes of disrupting the work location, is an integral, and lawful, part of the collective bargaining process in Canada. That does not mean to use another Committee members’ words, that a picket line is an intimidation tactic. But it is clear that the purpose is to disrupt the employer who is being struck.
72. In light of the above, the PSAC believes that it will be difficult to strike a more encompassing balance than already exists between parliamentary privilege and the rights of workers to strike and picket outside of buildings within the precinct of Parliament. Nor, in our view, is there any reason to do so.
73. As we have said elsewhere in this submission, one would have expected the on-site police to have intervened in the event that members of the Alliance involved in the February 17, 1999 picket line had actually assaulted a Member of the House—or indeed any other person. Since no such intervention was forthcoming despite a fairly heavy police presence, we are left to conclude that no assault or other criminal activity happened on February 17, 1999.
74. Moreover, if there was evidence that the picket line was violent, the House of Commons could have pursued legal action in an attempt to obtain an injunction that either prevented picketing or limited picket line activity—e.g. limit the number of pickets or the location of picket lines, that the House took no action indicates that it either did not believe that a significant problem existed or, in the alternative, that it could not meet the test that the courts determine before granting injunctions.
75. In the light of the above, the PSAC believes that your Committee should resist the temptation to expand the privilege afforded to Members of Parliament or establish some form of guidelines that attempt to prevent picket lines from being established outside buildings that are part of what are commonly referred to as parliamentary precincts.

76. The PSAC was surprised to learn on February 17^th, 1999 that a legal picket line established by our members outside of buildings that co-housed some of our members who were in a legal strike position and Members of Parliament could lead to such an exaggerated proceeding as the one currently underway.
77. It is beyond our comprehension that a picket line that resulted in no intervention by the police, no charges against our members and no application for an injunction by the House of Commons, could result in an allegation that one or more of the Alliance, its Officers, members and staff, violated the privilege of a Member of Parliament and could result in our being found in contempt of Parliament and subject to sanction, including incarceration.
78. The origin of parliamentary privilege is so ancient, and its potential impact on citizens so great – as the current allegations against the PSAC show – that at the very least Members of Parliament have an affirmative obligation, apart from being consistent with the Charter, to make very clear what the rules of the procedure are.
79. It is equally difficult for us to comprehend that Members of Parliament would use the situation that developed on February 17^th, to initiate a parliamentary discussion about the need to expand and extend privilege, particularly in the context of the Charter and the Bill of Rights.
80. In our view, the parliamentary process that has been initiated as a result of the actions of February 17^th, should indicate to all fair-minded Canadians—including, we hope the majority of Members of Parliament, that the exercise of parliamentary privilege should be restricted.
81. We take this position for two reasons. First, the House has other avenues open to it—particularly the courts, and second the House process is, at best, a denial of natural justice.
82. To be clear, while many of the questions that your Committee is considering are legal, and the consequences for the PSAC and others could be incarceration, the process is inherently political.
83. As a result, once again, we would urge your Committee and the House to halt this process as it relates to the specific allegations against the PSAC, its Officers, members and staff, and as it relates to an expansion of privilege.