Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of Members

Freedom from obstruction and interference: members denied access to the parliamentary precinct; prima facie

April 6, 2017

Debates, pp. 10245–7

On March 22, 2017, Lisa Raitt (Milton) rose on a question of privilege, alleging that she had been denied access to the parliamentary precinct, which impeded her ability to carry out her parliamentary duties. Ms. Raitt contended that, it being budget day, empty vehicles waiting for the Prime Minister had blocked her usual transportation at a time when members were being called to the House for a vote. Maxime Bernier (Beauce) contended that he had also been prevented from exercising his right to vote. The Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[1]

Resolution

On April 6, 2017, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He said that the right of members to enter the parliamentary precinct could not be overstated and that denying them access, even temporarily, could not be tolerated. He explained that he had received two internal reports on the events of March 22, 2017, which established that the members were impeded in fulfilling their parliamentary duties. The Speaker informed the House that, in order to prevent incidents such as this one, he had previously requested that members of the Parliamentary Protective Service be given mandatory ongoing training on the privileges, rights, immunities and powers of the House of Commons, including members’ unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct. The Speaker concluded that there were sufficient grounds to find a prima facie question of privilege, and he invited Ms. Raitt to move her motion.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on March 22, 2017, by the member for Milton regarding delayed access to the parliamentary precinct.

I would like to thank the hon. member for having raised this matter, as well as the members for Beauce, Perth—Wellington, and Hamilton Centre for their comments.

In raising this matter, the member for Milton indicated that she was prevented from attending a vote in the House of Commons and, thus, impeded in the performance of her parliamentary duties when her access to the parliamentary precinct through her normal transport was temporarily blocked. The member for Beauce confirmed that he was subjected to the same delay.

As Speaker, it is my role to ensure that the privileges of the House and the individual privileges of members are protected, including that of freedom from obstruction; for it is that privilege of unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct which ensures that members are able to discharge their responsibilities as elected representatives. I take my role in this regard very seriously. That is why upon hearing the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Milton I stated that I would obtain a report into what occurred.

In fact I have received two reports of the incident. The first, from the House of Commons Corporate Security Officer and Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms, provides an excellent minute-by-minute summary of events and is supplemented by witness statements. The second report was received from the acting director of the Parliamentary Protective Service.

Based on these reports, here is what appears to have happened on March 22nd. At approximately 3:47 p.m., the bollards at or by the vehicle screening facility were lowered to allow for the arrival of a bus transporting journalists to Centre Block for the presentation of the budget. The media bus, under Parliamentary Protective Service escort, immediately proceeded to Centre Block. Seconds later, after the media bus had proceeded, a House of Commons shuttle bus arrived at the vehicle screening facility but was not allowed to proceed to Centre Block. In the ensuing minutes, two more shuttle buses arrived at the vehicle screening facility and were similarly delayed. I am informed that members were on at least some of these buses.

During these delays, which lasted a total of nine minutes, two members, the member for Milton and the member for Beauce, were waiting at the bus shelter near the vehicle screening facility. At approximately 3:54 p.m., the member for Beauce entered the vehicle screening facility and made inquiries of parliamentary protective staff about the delays and then decided at approximately 3:55 p.m. to leave the bus shelter and walk up the Hill. As members will know, it was around this time that a vote was commencing in the House.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, on page 110, states:

Incidents involving physical obstruction—such as traffic barriers, security cordons and union picket lines either impeding Members’ access to the Parliamentary Precinct or blocking their free movement within the precinct … have been found to be prima facie cases of privilege.

The importance of the matter of members’ access to the precinct, particularly when there are votes for members to attend, cannot be overstated. It bears repeating that even a temporary denial of access, whether there is a vote or not, cannot be tolerated. The Parliamentary Protective Service needs to better familiarize itself with the operations of the House so that its posture reflects and gives priority to the needs of the House, its committees, and its members at all times, and it needs to ensure that Parliamentary Protective Service staff are always alert to changing circumstances in this regard.

This was stressed as long ago as 2004, when, in its 21st report, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs stated:

The denial of access to Members of the House—even if temporary—is unacceptable, and constitutes a contempt of the House. Members must not be impeded or interfered with while on their way to the Chamber, or when going about their parliamentary business. To permit this would interfere with the operation of the House of Commons, and undermine the pre-eminent right of the House to the service of its Members.

As my predecessor stated on March 15, 2012, at page 6333 of Debates:

… the implementation of security measures cannot override the right of Members to unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct, free from obstruction or interference.

Obviously these kinds of incidents, which have given rise to the issue now before us, have been all too frequent. It is for this reason that my predecessor stated on May 12, 2015, at page 13,760 of Debates that protective personnel:

… need to know the community they serve. They need to be sensitive and responsive to the community they serve, and they need to be familiar with the expectations of the community they serve. This includes having the primary function of this place top of mind as they go about performing their duties.

Clearly there was a failure in that regard on this occasion.

It is precisely to prevent the recurrence of events like that of March 22nd that some months ago I asked the director of the Parliamentary Protective Service, as one of his annual objectives, to provide mandatory training on an ongoing basis for all members of the service on the privileges, rights, immunities, and powers of the House of Commons, including unfettered access of members of the House of Commons to the parliamentary precinct.

The Chair has every confidence that the leadership of the Parliamentary Protective Service will be able to achieve this important understanding of the parliamentary community they serve by availing themselves of all opportunities available for relevant training, including those previously offered by the procedural staff of the House.

In the meantime, given the evidence that members were impeded in the fulfilment of their parliamentary duties and in view of the guidance provided by precedents, the Chair can only conclude that there are sufficient grounds for finding a prima facie question of privilege. I now invite the member for Milton to move the appropriate motion.

Postscript

While the House debated Ms. Raitt’s motion of privilege on April 6, 2017, the motion “That the House do now proceed to the Orders of the Day” was moved by Alexandra Mendès (Brossard—Saint-Lambert). The House agreed to the motion, with the result that the motion of privilege was superseded and dropped from the Order Paper.^[2] The next day, John Nater (Perth—Wellington) rose on a new question of privilege, asking the Speaker if and how the matter of privilege under debate on April 6, 2017, could be revived. In his ruling of April 11, 2017, the Speaker determined that it was procedurally in order to revive a question of privilege. He again found that, with regard to Ms. Raitt’s question of privilege, there was a prima facie question of privilege.