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]

Thursday, March 18, 1999

• 1116

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Order.

Although I have a few items of routine business, the order of the day is orders of reference from the House of Commons dated Wednesday, February 17, and Thursday, February 18, 1999, in relation to the matter of the molestation of Mr. Pankiw, the honourable member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, and in relation to the picket lines established to impede access to the precincts of Parliament.

I will officially welcome our witnesses, Major-General Cloutier and Michel Thivierge, director of security services, in a moment. But I'd like to begin by thanking all members of the committee for their participation in our two meetings yesterday. I was very impressed with that.

I also would like to thank our staff, Carol and Jamie. I think it was a very busy day for you, and particularly with regard to our second meeting a great deal of briefing material had to be provided. And I'm also going to proceed and mention the food. It did come to me, and this came to me from the movie Field of Dreams and from Stéphane Bergeron, that I think the motto of this committee should be—and this is with respect to members of Parliament—that if you cater it, they will come.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): We always come, even when there is no food. However, when food is provided, the least we can do is ensure that it is decent.

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, we'll proceed with the orders of reference from the House of Commons.

Major-General Cloutier, we greatly appreciate your being here. Monsieur Thivierge, it's very kind of you to come. We're in your hands for the introduction. I know you've been following the proceedings with great interest, and we would be glad for anything you have to say.

Major-General G. Cloutier (Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to briefly go back to February 17 to review the events of that day. At 6.40 a.m. members of PSAC, as part of a series of rotating strikes of government buildings, set up picket lines at the Bank Street access point to Parliament Hill and at all entrances to the Wellington Building. Their strategy was to slow down vehicle traffic to the Hill, yet allow pedestrians unimpeded movement.

Insofar as the Wellington Building was concerned, the intent was to prevent employees from gaining entry to their work site by standing shoulder to shoulder on the sidewalk in front of the entrances to the building.

It should be noted that as part of the ongoing negotiation with strike organizers, the Ottawa police informed them they would immediately intervene if any attempt was made to prevent members of Parliament and security service staff from freely entering the Wellington Building. In each case, it would be a matter of identifying individuals and entry would not be interfered with.

Any other employee would have to approach and pass through the picket lines strictly at their own risk. The police would only intervene if there was a real danger of violence. The local police strongly recommended that employees and the general public not attempt to force their way through the picket lines for reasons of personal safety. As far as the police were concerned, the strike was legal and all activity was occurring on public property. The picket lines would only be in place for a very short period of time.

• 1120

[Translation]

We did not receive any advance warning and that was unusual. However, in this particular instance, the police were concerned that information leaks or any visible preparations to counter strike action might hamper the ongoing negotiations and hinder its overall ability to enforce the law.

Once contact was made with the police and the strikers, House of Commons Security Services personnel positioned themselves in such a way as to identify MPs and their staff and warn employees of any potential danger. From the outset, we were in touch with Ottawa police operations staff to let them know that it wasn't enough simply to ensure that MPs had unimpeded access to their offices, but that it was also important to remember that members needed their support staff to perform their duties. Given the timing, there wasn't much we could do to change the police's strategy, considering how rapidly the situation was evolving that day.

[English]

During the course of the morning, a number of incidents were reported. In certain cases the movements of members of Parliament were briefly impeded while establishing their identity. In other circumstances, employees of the House either walked into a wall of workers standing shoulder to shoulder or were slightly jostled, felt intimidated, or heeded the warning that discretion was the best part of valour. The director of security was one of them.

No injuries or serious altercations occured throughout the strike action. During the same period we also had problems in maintaining the regular bus service. We observed a picket line on the Bank Street extension blocking access to the parking lots and the lower drive. Initially buses coming from the Centre Block were accessing the parking lots and the Confederation Building via the Bank Street extension. Pickets then blocked access to the Bank Street extension. Passengers at the Confederation Building at that particular time had to cross the Bank Street extension on foot and pick up the bus beyond the picket line. They were picked up from there and transported to the Centre Block and to their various regional caucuses or offices.

Buses at the Confederation Building that then tried to use the Bank Street extension to access Wellington were blocked by a picket line at approximately 8.15 a.m. Shortly after, verbal instructions were given to the drivers by their supervisor to use Kent Street and Wellington Street to pick up passengers in the parking lot and also the members from the Confederation Building and reroute to the East Block, Centre Block, and West Block from Wellington Street.

This pattern continued until 11 a.m. The normal route was resumed once the picketing ceased. At no time did our staff participate in or aid pickets. They carried out instructions from their supervisor to ensure the safety of their passengers and vehicles.

As an interesting point, it should be noted that verbal instructions were given to the drivers once they reached the Confederation Building. There are no two-way radios on the buses, so we had buses on the east side of the Bank picket line and we had some buses on the west side of the picket line, but eventually the message got through.

Subsequent to this event, the chief of the Ottawa police was contacted to open a dialogue regarding their role in those jurisdictions that can impact on the parliamentary precinct. This has already resulted in an initial meeting with operational personnel whose prime responsibility is to dictate operational policy and procedures and manage police responses to demonstration and strike action within their jurisdiction.

• 1125

[Translation]

The General Legal Counsel for the House of Commons intervened at this time and gave a legal opinion of the meaning of parliamentary privilege. She stressed that it wasn't enough simply to ensure that MPs had access to their offices and noted that they also required the services of their immediate staff. She went on to say that they might even require the services of additional staff, for example, committee support staff and House of Commons employees.

[English]

At this juncture, the police agreed that they would review all their policies regarding the control and management of strikes and demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament Hill. Arrangements were also made to follow up with meetings at the operational level to ensure better exchanges of information and develop procedures to clear up any confusion that might exist within the various jurisdictions. All agreed that the Wellington Building and the Promenade Building created a special challenge, as they were entirely surrounded by police roadways, sidewalks, or buildings. We are also pursuing this course of action with the RCMP.

We feel that it is timely to follow up with the Ottawa police in looking at their changes required in their strike and demonstration policy. To this end, we would love to conduct familiarization tours of the House of Commons precinct with key operational police personnel. This would provide both police and security staff a better understanding of their respective responsibility. We also recommend that we should have meetings with both the RCMP and local police on this issue, to review information exchanges between them, to ensure that they are adequate and timely. They should look at how each one of them will operate in the future within their various jurisdictions.

[Translation]

We would also like to make available to the police services the House of Commons' legal resources as a training tool for their tactical and demonstration control units. This would give us an opportunity to emphasize our special requirements.

Lastly, the definition of parliamentary precinct should certainly be broadened to include the government property between Bank Street and the Supreme Court of Canada which surrounds the Justice and Confederation buildings.

[English]

To me, this last one is indeed very important, because when you look at the Parliament of Canada Act, it has not been amended for so many years. The boundaries of the parliamentary precinct are the canal, the Ottawa River, Wellington Street, and the extension to Bank Street. Therefore, when police look at the geographical jurisdiction and responsibility, we find that the Confederation Building and soon to be acquired Justice Building are outside of the geographical boundary of Parliament. I hope members will take that into consideration in their deliberation.

That's all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Major-General Cloutier, thank you very much for that.

Mr. Thivierge?

Mr. Michel Thivierge (Director of Security Services, House of Commons): From the moment the strike started, I was in contact with the Ottawa city police to get a handle on what was happening and have a better understanding of their strategy. Essentially, the information I got at the outset was that they were in contact or in deliberations with the strike organizers. They have to be very careful how they deal with the information in those circumstances, and I can well understand that. If there were any leaks or if we on the Hill got involved in some overt preparations, then their ability to deal with the strikers would be reduced to next to nothing. That would then play havoc with their ability to police the entire city.

• 1130

Another thing that was made clear to me, and I have every reason to believe them, was there had been a clear agreement that members of Parliament would be allowed to enter the precincts once they were properly identified. Our security service staff had positioned themselves in the doorway and also on the other side of the demonstrators or the strikers to be able to try to identify members as they tried to work their way through the crowds and also inform our staff that maybe it's a good thing that discretion be the better part of valour.

I know that in certain circumstances some persons were jostled. When you're looking at maybe 75 to 80 people on that narrow sidewalk in front of the Wellington Building, to identify persons becomes difficult. So there may have been some slowdowns and some confusion. A number of employees were simply told they were not allowed to come through, and they just stood firm.

I have no reports of any serious pushing, shoving, or hitting. And some of them were fairly healthy specimens. They were standing side by side, and simply didn't budge.

I know that I had the same experience when I got called in at the House around seven o'clock in the morning. I went flying in, and when I arrived at the door it took maybe 10 or 12 seconds to identify myself as a member of the security service, and I was allowed in, because that was also part of the arrangement: it was members of Parliament, security service, and any individuals who might be directly involved with health and safety. It was a time of approaching them in a calm way and identifying yourself. I had to take my card out, and I was allowed in. There was a bit of nudge, nudge as I went in, simply telling me that they were letting me in, but they had enough people there to stop me if they really wanted to.

At this time I addressed a number of issues and got into contact with the police. I also, through cellular, talked directly to the Ottawa city police people, who were sur le plancher operating, and reconfirmed that whole business.

I also tried to explain to them during these conversations that in today's world MPs alone couldn't function; they needed support staff. But things were moving very rapidly. Also, at that time they had assured us that this event would be of very short duration, that probably somewhere around lunch or early in the afternoon things would come to a halt, so remain calm and the demonstration would be over.

I might also add that when you're working around this region, the Ottawa region and Parliament Hill—and I have had a number of years dealing with some of the issues here—it becomes extremely complex, because you are dealing with a multitude of jurisdictional issues. In some areas the RCMP have partial jurisdiction; in other places the Ottawa city police have partial jurisdiction; in other areas it's strictly the Ottawa city police that operate. You continually have to deal with these issues on a daily basis.

I've used the opportunity of this event to re-examine some of the issues, but I'd like to assure you that at least in my time here, and I also know for a number of years, the Sergeant-at-Arms' office and the security service have been in continual contact with the police to try to iron out and work together. However, I'd like to stress that because of the way the Constitution is structured in this country and the various jurisdictions, it's not very.... It's an interesting problem.

Another thing with the Wellington Building is the fact that it's right straight in the middle of the Ottawa city police jurisdiction. You can touch the building right from the sidewalk, whether it's on Wellington or on the Sparks Street Mall. You've got public buildings touching onto it. It's an extremely difficult place to manoeuvre in. So it's very easy for a very small group of people, even accidentally, to really slow down business around that place. Traffic can get heavy. We have tourists all over the place, people using the sidewalks. So it really doesn't take a lot to interfere or impede anybody's progress through those areas.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Thivierge. Thanks to you both.

• 1135

By the way, we have circulated, General Cloutier, the description from the Parliament of Canada Act that describes the precinct. So members have that already.

I have a list. I have Chuck Strahl, John Richardson, Stéphane Bergeron, André Harvey, Lynn Myers, Joe Fontana, and Lorne Nystrom. It's Chuck Strahl first.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Thank you.

I thank both of you for coming today. I appreciate that.

This has turned into a very interesting discussion, not only about the rights of members of Parliament and what their rights should be, but it's also been interesting in our discussion as to the future of the precincts of the House of Commons. It's turned into a question for our consideration, for example, as to where our future committee buildings should go. It's really kind of brought home a bunch of things that we maybe hadn't really thought of before. It's making us all rethink our positions on that, I think.

I have a couple of questions. One is that you'd talked about the communication you have now established with the various police organizations to talk about protocol and communications, and you're pleased that's happening. In your opinion, is that all that needs to happen? Are you satisfied with the general arrangements? Is it just a matter of more clearly describing parliamentary privilege and showing them the precincts? Is that going to be good enough? Do you really think that will change something at a future blockade of an entranceway?

MGen G. Cloutier: I personally feel that there is an education process that has to take place. It's fine for the police forces to look at the parliamentary precinct and say “I'm from the Ottawa police; I'm only responsible for the security outside of this building,” or “I'm RCMP; I'm on federal land”. But the two have to meet. The two have to consult closely, to work at it, to understand the parliamentary privilege question.

I suggest to you that if you talk to the cops on the street about parliamentary privilege, you're above their heads. And that's what we're trying to address.

The director has already had a meeting. Maybe he can expand on that.

Mr. Michel Thivierge: Yes, we've had an initial meeting with the operational people, starting with the chief of police, who was very cooperative in lining me up.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Which police?

Mr. Michel Thivierge: This was the Ottawa city police, who lined me up with some of their key operational people. I brought Diane Davidson with me to meet with them to maybe try to elaborate on some of that whole notion of parliamentary privilege with them. We had a very good meeting and good dialogue, and they agreed that they needed to educate their individuals or their people to our special needs around here. That's not to say, though, that we won't have hang-ups or complications should there be other strikes, because we get right back into the problem of how to identify individuals and how to work them through the picket lines. That can get pretty complicated when you have a lot of people milling around.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: There's been talk about eventually moving all the work of Parliament onto this side of Wellington. Then you'd be dealing basically with one police force; you'd be dealing only with the RCMP. Is that correct?

Mr. Michel Thivierge: Well, not totally. We'd also be dealing with the Ottawa city police, because there is sort of a joint responsibility. The Ottawa city police do not lose their jurisdiction in terms of investigating criminal offences. So if there was a serious criminal offence inside this building here, even inside this building, the Ottawa city police would be involved in the investigation, because the administration of justice falls within the provincial jurisdiction and that goes down to the municipality.

However, it would make it much easier to deal with, you're right, because the RCMP play a much bigger role on Parliament Hill in terms of protecting government buildings. You're back on crown property, so they have much more latitude to manoeuvre. Not only that, but just the sheer size of the property gives room to manoeuvre. It's extremely hard to manoeuvre any type of activity around that Wellington Building. You have a very narrow sidewalk, and it's extremely difficult to manage any type of crowd there.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: On the morning this took place, on February 17, there were, you'd mentioned, discussions between the OCP and the strikers—

Mr. Michel Thivierge: Yes.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: —on what was going to happen that morning and so on.

• 1140

My understanding is that although they were stacked in the doorways to make sure no one could get through, when some of the staff said “I don't mind crossing a picket line because it's not my union on strike”, or whatever their rationale was, the police, the OCP, actually told them, “If you try to go through there, I'll arrest you”.

Mr. Michel Thivierge: I wasn't there to hear that, but from my discussions with the Ottawa city police, that's not the information I picked up. The only information the Ottawa police told our own people, the security service and employees, was that they crossed at their own risk, and that they would only step in if there was some form of real violence.

I don't know if anybody would have been patient enough to try to sit down and talk to them and take 10, 15, or 20 minutes and work their way into the building or not. I really don't know, because that test was never made. But I don't for a minute believe that the Ottawa city police started informing people that they would.... As far as I know, they were absolutely neutral and would only react to specific circumstances.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Well, I'll talk to this person to see if they'd like to pursue that further, because that's what I was told. That's fine. I wasn't there either, so I'm just taking this....

When we had PSAC in here yesterday I asked if this same sort of thing could happen at Centre Block. Could they bring in picketers, stand shoulder to shoulder in front of the members' entrance, and do the same thing—in other words, just shut her down and let members in slowly as they were identified? They said that in their opinion, yes, absolutely, they could do the same thing; there's no difference between the precincts of Parliament and the Wellington Building. They could come here and do the same thing. That's what they said yesterday; I'm sure it was.

Do you agree with that? Is that true? They could come and do that and prevent at least staff from entering the Hill?

MGen G. Cloutier: I think they would encounter some problems there. First, to demonstrate on Parliament Hill you need a permit. Once we have the permit we obviously know when, where, and so on. If they come in on the Hill with pickets without a permit, then you can be assured that the RCMP will intercept before they get up to the door, hopefully.

We had cases not very long ago.... Mainly due to the ice sculptures outside in the front, a group came in almost to the west door of the Centre Block. But the area for demonstration is well delineated below the main steps of Parliament Hill on the front lawn.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just to clarify that point, in your opinion, if PSAC—I just use that example—were escalating their strike and today they were going to hit Centre Block, they would have to come and get a permit, and you wouldn't likely give them one for that. You would you say “You can demonstrate, but you can't blockade”. And if they tried to blockade the RCMP would do something about that to make sure they didn't actually.... That's not what PSAC.... You're going to have a fight on your hands with them, because they said they felt they could do that.

The Chair: There's a very pertinent point to that, very, very briefly. Joe Fontana.

Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): I have a short supplementary to follow up on what Chuck said.

I understand they don't think you need a permit if they have a legal right to strike any parliamentary precinct or government building. Hence, because they have some members of PSAC who work for the House of Commons, they believe they have the right to strike in front of Centre Block by virtue of the fact that they have a collective agreement on the Hill. So that's a little different from saying “I want to bring my pickets on the Hill and apply for a permit”. Maybe you can distinguish the difference here.

The Chair: Mr. Thivierge.

Mr. Michel Thivierge: Unless you know what is happening ahead of time, there's nothing to prevent a large number of people from suddenly arriving on the Hill. But my experience has been that the RCMP move in and contain and control.

In some of the other demonstrations we've had recently there may have been certain doors shut down. People may be rerouted for certain periods of time. Any activity on Parliament Hill is regulated much more than anywhere else. There are interdepartmental committees that sit, there are regulations, and the RCMP Act gives the RCMP a little more jurisdiction to operate on the Hill. They allow people to come up there and demonstrate, but then they contain them to certain areas. Movement might be interfered with, but eventually people can always get to where they have to go.

• 1145

The Chair: General Cloutier.

MGen G. Cloutier: To come back to Mr. Strahl, if I may, on the point you made regarding the Wellington Building, just to take you back in history, we always look at those buildings as commercial buildings. We never had members south of Wellington until we had the numbers of members we have today. By necessity it pushed us there.

I recall your committee, the members services committee in 1978-79, when we were trying to get the Justice Building at that time...we made presentations here. We had a beautiful site where the Rideau Club used to be. The maquette was done and we were ready to move in. This committee said no, we don't want to go south of Wellington, for some of the reasons you're hearing today. We said fine, and I was given the go-ahead to continue negotiations to acquire the Justice Building, which we finally got after 20 years.

Those commercial buildings are not good for members. It causes a lot of problems—internal problems too. The standing orders will say, well, okay, you have your privilege there, but we have House of Commons staff; we have commercial enterprises on the first floor facing Sparks Street. So you have a sheriff who comes in and wants to deliver a piece of paper to one of my staff, let's say. Well, he certainly does not have parliamentary immunity, but for the 27 members of Parliament sitting in that building it's very awkward. It's an awkward building for members from many directions.

The Chair: John Richardson, Stéphane Bergeron, and André Harvey.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, General Cloutier, Mr. Thivierge.

I have to live in that building, so I know it well—

The Chair: I have an apartment myself.

Mr. John Richardson: —almost 18 hours a day.

There's a problem that was described to us earlier when we were receiving the idea that parliamentary privilege is to be invoked. I'm not so sure who described it to us, but it was the role of the Ottawa police, where they took over and where the role of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police ended. It seemed that Wellington Street was the dividing line. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police didn't go across to the Wellington Building or...I forget the name of the Senate building. It would fall into that—

MGen G. Cloutier: The Victoria Building.

Mr. John Richardson: Yes.

If we're going to have this right or privilege to have access to our offices, to do the job of the member of Parliament, I don't know how we can effectively stop what happened on Wellington. The sidewalk is the city of Ottawa. The building belongs to the precinct of Parliament, I gather.

MGen G. Cloutier: It's under the Public Works Act.

Mr. John Richardson: During the picketing I was allowed in without incident, but the people were huddled up into the little space off the sidewalk, and it wasn't a very pleasant day to be out. People were huddled there. I felt I was treated fairly. I'll be up front about that.

But when I came back and we started to study this and look at the rights and privileges of members of Parliament...I just think we may not have known all our rights and privileges either. It's a little known fact. I felt that if people are working on the Hill this should be well known by them, if they're going on strike, that those rights and privileges exist over centuries and we've incorporated them into our operation in Canada.

The point I'm trying to make is that there's a matter of information, one, to members of Parliament who are new on the Hill, and that should be part of their kit, if we are going to proceed this way.

The other point is that all those who work on the Hill and all those unions should be given booklets describing what parliamentary privilege is all about. Maybe this kind of incident wouldn't have taken place in the first place. I think it may be a matter that ignorance ruled the roost here. In my observation, I don't think there was an intention to block members once it was explained to them after the first incident in the early morning. The member of Parliament who appeared before us described very clearly that he was blocked but later was allowed to come in.

• 1150

All I'm trying to put is that I think it's a matter of information at the moment, to keep everyone in the picture, because it is a bit of history and a right, a privilege. Also, people have to be made aware of it. It isn't in your face all the time because we don't always have strikes up here.

MGen G. Cloutier: Mr. Chairman, I think that's a very good point. I did mention earlier the educational process for the police forces operating on the Hill, but perhaps we should look at our own house and our own people. I certainly would like to pursue that, because I think there is une lacune. There is some work to be done on that. It's not well understood, I agree.

The Chair: Stéphane Bergeron, André Harvey, Lynn Myers, Joe Fontana.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Following up on this matter, Mr. Chairman, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the incident that occurred was simply the result of a misunderstanding. It is clear in my mind that a directive was in fact issued to union members to the effect that they should not prevent members from entering the building. I tend to think that this incident stemmed more from a misunderstanding then from any deliberate attempt to prevent a member of Parliament from gaining access to the precincts of Parliament.

The issue that remains unclear is whether privilege also extends to the staff of members of Parliament. That is something that we will have to consider within the next few days.

Did I understand you correctly to say that the Ottawa police or the RCMP felt it was not advisable to inform you of the situation from the outset?

Mr. Michel Thivierge: That's correct. By the time we were informed, the picket lines were already up at our doorstep.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Did they know that there would be picket lines and did they know how many demonstrators would be on hand?

Mr. Michel Thivierge: Several hours before a demonstration is scheduled to take place or a picket line is to be set up, they receive a document providing them with these particulars. This enables them to assign their resources to strategic locations. If they start to reveal this information to individuals who are being targeted, they will lose up their ability to deal with the people on the picket lines. That is when the police lay down the rules of the game and let it be known what actions they will or will not tolerate on the part of strikers.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: If I understand you correctly, the police felt that it was best not to provide this information to the House of Commons Security Services so as not to impede the overall effectiveness of their operations.

Mr. Michel Thivierge: That's correct. That's an accurate description of what transpired.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: What possible explanation can the police give for acting in this manner?

Mr. Michel Thivierge: In the course of conducting their operations, the police assess the situation they are facing and make a decision whether or not to pass along any information. They assess the risk involved. This is fairly standard police procedure.

These circumstances were exceptional because in 99% of all cases, we receive information in advance which enables us to plan our operations within our buildings.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I found our discussion with Ms. Davidson rather interesting. I asked her pointedly whether parliamentary privilege meant that a parliamentarian could not be prevented in any way from getting to his place of work, even while in transit. As I understand it, and I put this question directly to Ms. Davidson, parliamentary privilege means that a member cannot be impeded in any way, whether in front of the Wellington Building, in Hull or somewhere else, for that matter.

• 1155

The more I listen to you, the more I sense we're dealing with an important issue. In this instance, jurisdictional problems hampered the effectiveness of the operations, not those of the police services who deemed it best not to inform you, but those of the House of Commons Security Services. The House Security Services were prevented from doing their job, or at least impeded in some way. That's my first point.

Secondly, we learned something very interesting this morning regarding the history of permits. House and RCMP authorities have total control in some respects over everything that happens within the precincts of Parliament. Nothing can happen without their permission.

In light of this observation, I'd like to ask you the following question. In the event the definition of parliamentary precinct is extended to encompass the street bordering on the Supreme Court on the one side and the Justice building on the other side, that is Kent Street, would it be advisable to include in this area all operations directly affecting parliamentarians?

Mr. Michel Thivierge: Ideally, that would be best.

MGen. G. Cloutier: That would be preferable, because for the moment, the people working in the Wellington Building are somewhat forgotten or separate. This building is located on a street corner. It is in a heavy traffic area and there is no parking.

One of the options that we are presently considering is relocating committee rooms such as this one to the Wellington Building. If all committee rooms were in the same location, all members, all witnesses and anyone wishing to attend meetings would all gather in the same building. We have a responsibility to provide security services. Currently, we are having problems with this particular building because it is a commercial building. Think of the problems we could encounter. Certainly this is something that we will be looking at when we assess our use of this building for parliamentary purposes.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Not all committees meet in this building. However, having had my office in this building for four years, let me tell you that there could be problems, particularly as regards transportation. It's a nightmare having to organize a shuttle bus service for members of Parliament. I can't even imagine what might have happened that day if seven, eight, nine or ten committee meetings had been scheduled for the Wellington Building, along with witnesses, members and staff. We're talking about one isolated incident. I urge my whip colleagues to give this matter careful consideration. There is a considerable amount of traffic around the Wellington Building, particularly at certain times of the day. The more I think about it, the more I find the idea totally ludicrous.

MGen. G. Cloutier: In redefining the perimeter of the parliamentary precinct, it would be a good idea to ensure that we include that portion of Bank Street which extends onto Parliament Hill. That way, we would not come under the jurisdiction of the Ottawa police, but rather under the jurisdiction of Parliament.

I have to admit that I tried to get a similar proposal passed 12 years ago. The matter went as far as the Justice Department, but no further. I'm certain that our lawyers could make a case for adjusting the boundaries. If you own a home or a farm, you know the specific dimensions of your property. If something happens, you can defend your interests. At present, half of Parliament Hill is governed by the Parliament of Canada Act, while the other half is not.

• 1200

Beyond a certain point, the first thing the police ask is: Where does Parliament Hill begin? Who is responsible for the area behind the Confederation Building? In some respects, the RCMP is. And yet, the Ottawa police maintain that Bank Street falls within their jurisdiction, including the portion that extends up to the House of Commons parking lot. That would need to be clarified.

Once we have relocated to the Justice Building, 65% of all members will have their offices in this building and in the Confederation Building.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: At present, that building is not part of the parliamentary precinct.

MGen. G. Cloutier: Strictly speaking, no, it is not.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I have one final comment. I would ask my colleagues to listen carefully because we are discussing a very important issue. I'm speaking in particular to my colleague Chuck who didn't even have his earpiece on at the end.

An hon. member: He no longer needs it.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That's right, he's now fully bilingual.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I don't need it anymore.

The Chair: Now Stéphane, I really think that...

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Forget I said that. It was a low blow.

[English]

The Chair: Convoluted.

So we have André Harvey, Lynn Myers, Joe Fontana, Lorne Nystrom, George Baker.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. This proves that instinctively, when we look at the references, we sometimes tend to view some as more important than others. This reference has provided us with an opportunity to give this matter some serious thought. I don't think that anyone had really thought much about this before. We weren't all that familiar with the boundaries of Parliament Hill. However, we are certainly not here to draw up a security plan.

Earlier, you stated that in order to get a better understanding of our respective interests, one essential step would be to have a training plan, the management of which would be taken on by House of Commons officials. I'd like to have your opinion on this. Exactly which officials are you referring to? Would you have the necessary authority to convene all other stakeholders in this security plan, that is the RCMP, the Ottawa police and other forces, in order to devise a common training plan? Would this plan be drawn up by Parliament Hill officials or in cooperation with the other police forces?

MGen. G. Cloutier: I believe all three forces would be involved. We have a very good relationship with the other two police forces. We hold meetings and in fact, we discuss operational issues with them on an almost daily basis.

I was thinking that we could sit down together, not to discuss policing issues in general, but rather to delve further into the subject of parliamentary privilege. We could define respective jurisdictions more clearly, perhaps make some adjustments and determine how best to intervene.

Mr. Michel Thivierge: I fully agree. The police services are willing to cooperate. They're also trying to understand the meaning of parliamentary privilege and how it relates to the interests of members of the general public who have the right to demonstrate or to go on strike. This is an extremely complex situation for them. They are open to some kind of dialogue on the subject.

Will this lead to some concrete plans? Perhaps. We do, however, have the assurances of the Ottawa police that they understand our problems and will do everything they can to accommodate us. This is not to say that complex situations won't arise when demonstrations occur, because it's sometimes difficult to control such things.

Mr. André Harvey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, André.

Lynn Myers and Joe Fontana.

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

I want to pursue the police angle, if I could. I thought I heard both of you say you've had ongoing negotiations, especially with the operational side, in terms of what should or shouldn't happen. I think, General, you actually said there was a strike and demonstration policy being developed. I understand that—I think—to mean that it's not that they didn't have one before. It's one now that will augment and take into consideration some of the things that have happened. But I want to understand your involvement in the development of that policy.

I also wondered whether or not there was any discussion in terms of the RCMP and the Ottawa-Carleton region getting together in some sort of joint formulation of that policy. As you know, this is a bit of a jurisdictional mess, and while it would be nice to ask if we could have just one police service looking after the whole precinct, I think it's fair to say that won't happen.

• 1205

I wonder what kind of interface is going to happen between the two, and quite frankly, whether we'll ever see it. I understand the operational side may say no, we as a group should never see that, because of security and other factors, but I wondered if any dialogue had taken place about that.

Mr. Michel Thivierge: This discussion is at an embryonic stage. However, right now, after the Ottawa city police have re-examined their policy and put in a number of changes in relation to this area, their lawyer and our lawyers are going to get together and re-examine the policy and refine it. The other aspect is that the Ottawa city police have also agreed, starting this fall, to offer an invitation to us to come in and lay down our concerns in terms of our needs around this area. We need to remember that we have to rely to some extent on the goodwill of the police, because it's their policy, their operations, and they are accountable to the courts in terms of anything they do.

But I can say now there has been an opening, we've had a couple of very good meetings, and it's going to be an ongoing process. I think this is a fairly decent opening on the part of the police, to agree to sit down and deal with these legal issues, to sit down lawyer to lawyer and really look at them.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, this is a very complex issue, as you know, as it relates to policing and jurisdiction. I wonder if we could have an update from time to time on the status of those negotiations.

Mr. Michel Thivierge: Sure.

Mr. Lynn Myers: I think that would be important.

Regarding the parliamentary precinct, I came from a committee meeting this morning at La Promenade, and I wonder what the status of this building is in this whole equation.

MGen G. Cloutier: La Promenade Building belongs to Public Works. It's a Public Works building. From the security point of view, they're responsible for the security within the building. Up to two years ago, there were no security guards or anything in that building. As a result, some of our staff were having a lot of problems. People were walking into the restaurant on the second floor, then to various offices, and on payday you would see some of the purses disappear, cheques and so on. After a lot of pressure on Public Works, they agreed to put the Corps of Commissionaires in there.

We occupy the whole building, except for the second floor. From a maintenance point of view, security, we don't have a presence in there.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Is there thought to extending the precinct to include that building? Has that been looked at?

MGen G. Cloutier: That has never been looked at, no.

Mr. Lynn Myers: My final question deals with the day in question and the security personnel on site. Was there any attempt to have the security people identify members of Parliament or escort them through? Was any of that thought about or done, or were there any discussions with the striking PSAC people? Can you give us a sense of what happened, what transpired?

Mr. Michel Thivierge: I have a senior officer on duty all the time, and as soon as the strikers got into place he immediately came into contact with the police and got the information regarding members of Parliament and their position in terms of the strike. We stationed security service people in key spots to be able to identify MPs and to inform our employees to be cautious, that they would be going through at their own risk. However, we were advising them to be careful, to get hold of their supervisors, and told them we would get information out to them as things developed. Yes, we do that automatically.

This is also a process that kicks into place when the RCMP is operating on the Hill. Our traffic unit is often located and working hand in hand with the RCMP to identify any special needs we might have. That process was operating in place that morning, as it would have been at any other time.

Mr. Lynn Myers: This is my final point. Is it your testimony, then, that people were merely delayed, or were they prevented from getting in?

Mr. Michel Thivierge: The members of Parliament were delayed. There may have been physical contact. It took a bit of time on a couple of occasions, maybe 20 or 25 seconds, to identify them, but once they were identified they were allowed in.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Okay. We have Joe Fontana, Lorne Nystrom, and then George Baker. Joe.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen, for your insight and information.

• 1210

There's no doubt that education on both sides of the issue with regard to parliamentary privilege would be helpful. I tend to think, though, that we're being a little naive here. I think PSAC readily admitted they thought they had a right to strike because they have a collective agreement with some employees in the House of Commons. Hence, they believe they can strike the employer, who they believe to be the House of Commons, the Government of Canada. They don't believe in the difference. So they believed that they had the right to be there.

No matter where you draw the line, government buildings are all over the place. There's been some discussion here as to whether constituency offices are really an extension of parliamentary precincts, because constituency offices are an extension of our parliamentary role, and what we do there is equally as important as, in some cases, what we might do here. Therefore, one could get into whether or not the constituency offices are an extension too.

So PSAC, as they admitted, wanted to make a statement. They were in a strike position, and they wanted to make a statement. They said, readily so, that if a member of Parliament were to be identified.... We're not as recognizable as some of the stars like Mr. Strahl and Mr. Nystrom; some of us might not be that well known. Therefore, how would you expect people on picket lines to assume that's an MP? And yes, there were delays and physical contact. So I think they readily admitted that they understood parliamentary privilege and that they had said that to their people. As well, our security people know who the members of Parliament are. So there was a delay. There was a problem.

I agree we need to define parliamentary precincts, extension of parliamentary privilege to staff, which is very, very important. But we can't be so naive as to not know that the union believed it was in a collective agreement and had every right to strike in front of any government building. I understood them to say any government building. It didn't matter if it was the House of Commons. That's why I wanted to follow up on Chuck's question.

In your opinion, is there a difference between a demonstration and a picket line and the right to strike? Are you telling me that if in fact they wanted to strike in front of Centre Block, the regulations with regard to demonstrations and the RCMP, in terms of the regulations and monitoring of a demonstration or a picket line, would prevail? They could come up without a permit and say they have a collective right here, or a right to picket, therefore they're going to put their pickets in front of the parliamentary buildings, at Centre Block. And you already have within the law some measure to get rid of that picket line, if you want, so you go to court and get an injunction.

My first question is how you would deal with the situation when they believe they have a legitimate right to picket in front of Centre Block, as opposed to a demonstration and all the regulatory framework that we have for the Parliament buildings?

Mr. Michel Thivierge: Your point is well taken. When you start trying to draw lines between a picket, a demonstration, right to communicate, etc.... I'd only be deluding myself if I believed that just because we take the position that you can't strike on the Hill, there are not maybe 400 or 500 people who are going to end up on the Hill. What I'm saying, though, is that the RCMP is in a much better position, because there's more space, there's more room, there are better ways to manoeuvre, there's a greater ability to move people in and out of buildings. The police can do a better job of controlling the security.

Mr. Joe Fontana: What I would like to know, and maybe you can tell me—if you can't, you could maybe find out from the RCMP or somebody else—is whether they believe a legal picket line on Parliament Hill, not a third-party picket, but a legal picket line in front of Centre Block, is.... How would they deal with that, just as a case study, as opposed to a demonstration where we have an awful lot of the regulations? You might want to think about that.

• 1215

Secondly, the second incident, as I understand it, was that the bus drivers failed to bring members of Parliament, even staff, up to the Hill because they are—and I'm trying to understand why—members of PSAC. There's the collective agreement. They're not striking, and yet they took it upon themselves. Do they know what the parliamentary privilege is? This is where there's a conflict. A PSAC member of one collective unit that's not on strike says to a member of Parliament, “I'm not taking you up there. Why? Because my fellow PSAC members are up there.” Yet he or she is not on strike. Do they understand what their obligations are as employees because of parliamentary privilege when it comes to denying a member of Parliament transportation to get to his or her place of work? I find that a little problematic, and I want to know why that can happen.

MGen G. Cloutier: As I mentioned earlier, the buses were stopped at the picket line. There was no problem up until 8.15 a.m. Once the buses remained on the east side of the picket line, one or two of the drivers still waiting at the Confederation Building found out that they couldn't go through the picket line. How they found out was by voice, really, because there are no radios in those buses. He just informed the member that he could not take him up this way and that his supervisor had suggested he use Kent Street to exit and Wellington Street.

I don't think the picket line stopped the buses in any way, shape, or form, but they were slowing down the buses. On this caucus morning it might have taken a bit longer to get the bus across the picket line.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: They just wouldn't go.

Mr. Joe Fontana: I understand, though, that they wouldn't even go.

The Chair: There was at least one case where the bus simply wouldn't go.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Under that circumstance, which your security people probably did know about, I'm wondering why you wouldn't have put a security person on the bus to ensure that the MPs who were being transported would get through the picket line. I must admit that PSAC has said that they respect the parliamentary privilege, so that's not the problem. I think they said MPs would cross their picket line. Yes, there might be a little delay because they wouldn't recognize them.

The point I'm trying to make is why can an employee of the House of Commons—albeit that they belong to a union, and I have too, so I understand—deprive a member of Parliament transportation to get to his or her place of work? All of a sudden they become the police, they become the security, they become the—

MGen G. Cloutier: I would suggest that at that particular time he was following his supervisor's direction. As you said, he probably doesn't know much about parliamentary privilege. But as I mentioned in my opening remarks, none of the PSAC members of the transport section did partake. All of them are members of PSAC, and they were not part of the activities on that day.

Mr. Joe Fontana: I must admit that they're very good to us as MPs. They bend over backwards and give us excellent service. Obviously they were caught between a rock and a hard place too. They belong to a union and weren't on strike themselves, but obviously those kinds of choices have to be made too.

MGen G. Cloutier: That could apply not only to transport but also to others, because out of about 824 unionized members on Parliament Hill, 337 are members of PSAC. It's not only the transport section.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Yes, that's—

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Next is Lorne Nystrom, followed by George Baker.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Thank you very much for your very thorough presentation.

I remember, Mr. Cloutier, when the Wellington Building opened. I can't recall the year, but you and I were both here at that time.

MGen G. Cloutier: It was in 1978.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Like Mr. Richardson, I have an office there. Unlike him, I don't live there, but I have an office there.

I wanted to seek some advice from you. If MPs don't understand the rules—and we are MPs and we're here for a long time, some of us, and some of us are not here for a long time, but at least we're here—then how do we expect others to understand the rules? How do we resolve that? Maybe you can give me some advice in that domain.

The second issue I wanted to ask you about is that there has been some talk of protocol, which Mr. Richardson and others raised, in terms of how we sort this thing out for the future. Do you have any advice for us as to how we would resolve this? We have the ancient rights of parliamentary privilege on one side and now we have the Charter of Rights on the other side, and there is a potential conflict between the two, parliamentary privilege and the rights of the charter. The charter came into effect in this country in the 1980s.

• 1220

Do we ourselves establish what those parliamentary rights should be, or do we bring in other groups and in a way negotiate where we draw that line? If we do that, then what other groups do we bring in? We have several unions on the Hill. You mentioned there were about 800 workers, with PSAC being the largest.

MGen G. Clouthier: There are four or five unions.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Are there any groups out there that should be part of helping to define what it is? Joe says that maybe even riding offices should be privileged or should not be privileged. How do we define this? You've been here a long, long time. I wonder if you have any any advice as to how we sort our way through this mess.

MGen G. Clouthier: I wish I were a procedural expert on that. I'm a bit out of my field when it comes to this particular subject. There's obviously a need for more information out there. You're asking how we're going to do that. I really haven't thought about that one.

Do you have anything on that one?

Mr. Michel Thivierge: The police are trying to sort out these issues, and they're learning the hard way, step by step through the court process. I can honestly say that very much of their reaction in terms of how they deal with these people is directly related to trying to find that delicate balance. It's not an easy question. I don't have any black and white answers to that, either.

I know that it's a lot tougher to deal with those issues on public thoroughfares and on the sidewalk. It gets a little easier when you get onto the Hill because it's crown property. It's not quite as public as a sidewalk and a street. There you have a little more authority to control things a little better. That's about the extent of my understanding of this dicey issue, and it's a tough one. I've pondered it many times.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: It is a real problem.

The parliamentary privilege started a long time ago, before there was a charter.

Mr. Michel Thivierge: Absolutely.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Now we have privilege on this side and the charter on that side. How do the two mesh in terms of making sure we have that balance?

Mr. Michel Thivierge: In terms of the impressions I get from talking to everybody, PSAC and the police recognize that the member himself has a privilege. They don't know how far it extends. They agree that they will make every effort to work MPs through the lines. There it becomes a problem as to how do you identify them. What's the best tactical approach to do it?

It becomes extremely difficult for us, as Mr. Bergeron mentioned. When we do have 24 hours' notice, we can think of all the niceties of putting a security person on the bus to identify members and to bring extra people in in the morning to be around to do these things. But beyond that, it becomes really tough to deal with. As I say, it becomes a heck of a lot more complicated when we're dealing with a public thoroughfare or a public sidewalk than with crown property, which is part of the area in front of the Hill and around the Justice Building.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I have two more quick questions before Mr. Baker asks his very incisive questions a moment down the road. You both used the terms “picket line” and “demonstration” sort of interchangeably. Is there a distinction between the two? How do you differentiate between the two? I noticed that in your description.

Mr. Michel Thivierge: There is a distinction, but when you start dealing with these individuals, it depends on what hat they put on. If they can't picket on the Hill, theoretically they can demonstrate on the Hill.

In terms of getting messages, it amounts very much to the same thing. With even fairly large demonstrations on the Hill, members of Parliament can work their way through because there are more entrances and exits. There's more room to manoeuvre. Therefore you can better control the demonstrations. Also, ahead of time the police say “Listen, this is what we'll tolerate. You can go sit there, you can stand there, you can yell and scream, but we won't let you cross that line. We will push you back.”

If a person says “I'm on strike and expressing my right under the charter to communicate”, those are thin lines in terms of the law.

The Chair: I've been listening to you talk about these two rights. We're talking about conflict in modern times, and both are facing modern times. I think it's a question of balance between the two. That's what we're trying to get at. It's not conflict. I understand your point.

Sorry, go ahead.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I thought I was very clear when I asked what is the balance between the two and how do they intermesh.

This will be my last question. I think Mr. Pankiw described in the House part of the incident by saying that he confronted a “mob of hooligans”. Did you see any evidence of that when you were there, that this was a mob of hooligans?

• 1225

Mr. Michel Thivierge: No, I didn't, I'll be honest with you. It took me 10 or 15 minutes to get through the lines. I took my time. I've been through picket lines many times in my lifetime and I've dealt with them, so I took my time and walked in. Once I answered about 50 phone calls, I went back downstairs just to see how my people were doing. I wandered through the crowd. They got to know my face. I spoke to them.

I thought that in terms of picketers, they were a pretty decent bunch. They were jovial; you know, you could kibitz with them. Once they got to know who I was, I walked and wandered among them without any trouble at all. It was the same thing with our security staff. Once we got through that initial coldness and stiffness and worked our way through it, we had no problems after that.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: So you wouldn't identify them in this way.

Mr. Michel Thivierge: No, I wouldn't, from what I saw, the reports I've read, and discussions with the Ottawa city police.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I know, Mr. Chair, Mr. Baker has some very insightful important questions that will thrill the committee, so I will cede the floor to Mr. Baker.

The Chair: George Baker.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I know he's a relative newcomer—I was here four years before him—but he's learning.

Mr. George S. Baker (Gander—Grand Falls, Lib.): I remember 1978 very well. I was a pro at that time.

We have a definition of Parliament Hill here, and I wonder if you could be a bit more specific. On Parliament Hill, as you point out, there are special procedures you go through in order to demonstrate, and you have to seek permission. Parliament Hill is bounded by Wellington Street. Does that mean the middle of Wellington Street, or up to the sidewalk?

MGen G. Cloutier: It's the fence.

Mr. George Baker: Then when you get to the canal, at what point does Parliament Hill begin? Is it in the middle of the canal?

MGen G. Cloutier: No, it's the fence really.

Mr. George Baker: What about the Ottawa River?

MGen G. Cloutier: The boundary is at the bottom of the cliff by the road.

Mr. George Baker: Is it at the high-water mark? When you get to the extension of Bank Street, where does Parliament Hill begin?

MGen G. Cloutier: It begins at the entrance gate.

Mr. George Baker: Where does it begin on the entrance gate? Is it in the middle of the gate?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Can we bank on that?

MGen G. Cloutier: It's at the east side of that street.

Mr. George Baker: Now the reason why I'm asking this—

The Chair: Give him a chance.

MGen G. Cloutier: You recall the old Parliament gates before they took them down. That's where the line is.

Mr. George Baker: So you have to remember the old gates.

MGen G. Cloutier: That's true.

Mr. George Baker: The reason I'm asking that question is this. If what you're saying is correct, an information picket line could legally close down Parliament Hill if they were behaving as the picket line behaved at the entrance to Parliament Hill closest to the Confederation Building. Are you saying you could legally have an information...? I notice one of the gentlemen is shaking his head.

Mr. Michel Thivierge: I'll let you finish there. I'm sort of thinking out loud.

Mr. George Baker: I know it doesn't sound good. They could literally close down the entire Parliament Hill. If that is the definition of Parliament Hill, they could legally do that, couldn't they?

Mr. Michel Thivierge: They could slow things down, but I don't think they could close it down.

Mr. George Baker: Why?

Mr. Michel Thivierge: Number one, if the interference reaches a stage where it becomes detrimental to an organization, there are remedies you can seek out. Injunction is one of them. You can get a court order to move people out, as occurred in Toronto, but the demonstration there had reached a very serious stage.

In this case, they're very smart at playing the game. It's a rotating strike. They interfere with only a certain number of people for a certain period of time. By the time it starts to hurt, they've gone somewhere else, so business resumes as normal. Theoretically they could surround the place and slow things down, but to say they could really paralyse it, unless they could physically do it, I don't think it could happen—

Mr. George Baker: Until you got an injunction.

• 1230

Mr. Michel Thivierge: You could get an injunction. Also, there's a point where the police would start telling them to open up and let people through. Things can deteriorate to a point where action is taken.

Mr. George Baker: Was that point reached at the entrance between the Confederation Building and the West Block?

Mr. Michel Thivierge: I don't think it was ever reached because police and everybody knew it was going to be of short duration. With a bit of patience and common sense, with no violence, by noon things were over.

Mr. George Baker: So you're saying because Parliament Hill is up from the gate, people could legally use the sidewalk in a peaceful manner, cross those entrances legally, and shut the place down for a period of time until you got an injunction.

Mr. Michel Thivierge: Yes, very much so.

The Chair: When I get a permit to demonstrate on Parliament Hill, do I get a note that says something like “Please remember that members of Parliament have some unusual rights that have been confirmed under the Constitution and the charter”?

MGen G. Cloutier: No, not necessarily. It's going to sound very strange to the committee, but the secretariat for this permit issuance is the PWGSC protocol office. So if you apply for a permit for demonstration, you address your demand there. They send your request to the RCMP, Ottawa police, the House of Commons, the Senate, and the PCO for us to know and state whether we see any problems. If it's all negative, they issue the permit. That's it. It's purely administrative in the real sense of the word.

The Chair: Colleagues, I would suggest, before I thank our witnesses, that our next step should be to meet on Tuesday at our regular time, in camera, to discuss what we should do next.

Bob Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.): I have just an observation. I don't know if it's shared by my colleagues on both sides of the table here, but given the representation made yesterday by the representatives from PSAC that put in doubt—in my mind—some of the testimony we heard, particularly from our own legal counsel, Diane Davidson, I wonder if we feel we might entertain asking her to come back just to clarify some of those issues for us. I suppose we could ask her to clarify them by correspondence.

The Chair: If I might suggest, that was the sort of thing I'd envisioned us discussing on Tuesday.

Lorne Nystrom.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: As you know, I'm here substituting for John Solomon, and on his behalf I wanted to see if the committee was interested in entertaining a motion to try to sort out the status of any witnesses to some of these events. For example, PSAC has a witness who's a city policeman who has a different interpretation of events from Mr. Pankiw, and he was there to observe the events.

I don't want to push this unless there's interest in the committee, because PSAC is concerned about what protection their witness would have if he contradicted a member of Parliament, in terms of the privileges on the Hill. PSAC doesn't want to put this person in jeopardy at all. I just wanted to raise this.

Mr. Solomon has a motion he'd be willing to move if the committee had some interest in that.

The Chair: I have a list. I have Chuck Strahl, Bob Kilger, Joe Fontana, and George Baker.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Briefly, I think it would be worth while to get someone to address what was really quite a marked difference in testimony.

We could do that at the in camera meeting to see where we should go next. My only suggestion is we ask our researcher to point out some of the more obvious differences in those two reports. In other words, was this a secondary picket or a primary picket? If we knew where the differences were, we could decide whether we needed an expert—an outside labour lawyer witness—or we could just ask for some other clarification.

I think we should go to the meeting on Tuesday to determine what to do next. We may want to, as Mr. Nystrom says, call more witnesses. But if we at least knew.... I think the most clashing testimony was between PSAC and our own legal counsel. If we at least knew what those big differences were and had them detailed that these are the two stories, we could determine whether we need outside help or Ms. Davidson to come back.

• 1235

The Chair: My thought was that at that meeting we would be as well briefed as possible.

Bob Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger: On that note, I'll defer the rest of the discussion on that matter and others until the next meeting.

The Chair: Joe Fontana.

Mr. Joe Fontana: I could do the same, except here's where I'm coming from: Most of our discussions now relate to how we're going to define parliamentary privilege, parliamentary precincts, this, that, and everything else, even the testimony of our two colleagues who in fact put the reference to Parliament and therefore that's why we have the reference here. I think we have an opportunity here to separate the two issues.

To be able to hang one on the other one is problematic. I think we should be able to deal with this in two stages. One is that we should deal with our responsibility as the procedure and House affairs committee to deal with the reference from the House as it relates to.... And I heard our colleagues say they don't want to press charges. They understand the problem, and so on and so forth. Yes, they had some difficulties. They're thinking more of the future.

I think our own people, Diane Davidson and so on, are thinking about the future. I think PSAC's position is that this is a quasi-court, and are you thinking of bringing sanctions against an individual or an organization and everything?

So my approach would be to have two steps: first, on Tuesday, discuss dealing with this issue, this complaint from our two colleagues, and then do a lot more study and discussion on where we go from here in the future with regard to parliamentary privilege and parliamentary precincts, and not tie the two together.

It was obvious that we needed to deal with the future because of what happened today, in the present, by virtue of an encounter of a strike, picketers and some MPs. I think that's legitimate, but we ought to separate the two. Therefore we can deal with one matter, hopefully, and—

The Chair: Joe, I think that's exactly the sort of thing I'd like to hear on Tuesday.

George Baker.

Mr. George Baker: I have one sentence, that's all, just to say that I agree with what has been said here, that there appears to be a difference in the testimony. However, I've examined her testimony in detail and I find there is absolutely nothing wrong with her testimony at all. It's just that if you take the sentences by themselves, the impression created is quite different from what it is if it's examined in its totality. I found her information given to this committee, as it read in the record, was excellent.

An hon. member: Whose testimony are you talking about?

Mr. George Baker: I'm talking about the legal expert for the House of Commons.

The Chair: Lorne Nystrom.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I want to make sure you would consider at that next meeting John Solomon's request of the possibility of more witnesses.

The Chair: Okay, I recognize that there is a request, and it's an example of one of the ways we might proceed.

Colleagues, again, before I thank our witnesses, the thought is that we meet here on Tuesday at the regular time, and the purpose of that meeting, with as much briefing as we can obtain, is to discuss what we're going to do next. Okay?

I want to thank General Cloutier and Mr. Thivierge. We have greatly appreciated your assistance today.

I forgot to do this at the beginning, colleagues, but I would like to thank our interpreters. Unfortunately I can't see who is there, but I would like you, if you were there yesterday, to accept our thanks for yesterday afternoon, and if you were not, to convey to your colleagues that we greatly appreciated the interpretation at four o'clock. We know it was very difficult. There were some unusual accents. We thank you for that.

We're adjourned until Tuesday morning at eleven o'clock.