Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of the House

Contempt of the House: disturbance in the gallery

April 11 and 27, 1990

Debates, pp. 10488, 10760

On April 10, 1990, a recorded division was held on the third reading of Bill C-62 concerning the Goods and Services Tax (GST). Immediately after the announcement of the result of the vote, two visitors seated in the Opposition Gallery disrupted proceedings by creating a disturbance and throwing papers onto the floor of the Chamber in protest of the passage of the Bill. The following day, Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader) rose on a question of privilege regarding the incident. Mr. Cooper asserted that the House cannot do its work, or maintain essential dignity, if “strangers” disrupt proceedings in an abusive way. He concluded that in this case both a prima facie breach of privilege and a prima facie contempt had occurred. Furthermore, he questioned whether Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt) who had provided the two visitors with signed cards admitting them to the Gallery had prior knowledge of their intentions and suggested that the broadcast testimony of one of the protestors respecting his intentions indicated that Mr. Karygiannis “owes the House at least an explanation, then an apology and…an appearance before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.” Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa—Vanier) informed the House that, in his capacity as whip of the official opposition, he had spoken to Mr. Karygiannis who denied any knowledge that the persons to whom he issued passes were going to cause a disturbance. Mr. Gauthier asked the Speaker to reserve judgment until Mr. Karygiannis who was not present that day had the opportunity to make a statement to the House. Other members also commented generally on the nature of the security measures used to screen visitors to both the public and Members’ galleries and the implications of the incident on future security considerations.^[1] The Speaker made a statement immediately. The substance of the statement is recorded below together with some points of clarification given by Mr. Karygiannis.

RESOLUTION

The Speaker: …The incident that happened is not amusing. I think that especially for the public watching this particular exchange it does little credit to anybody in this country to use whatever subterfuge they can to come into this place, which is symbolic of our democracies, our freedoms and our liberties, and abuse them.

The incident that happened, so far as the person involved in this incident is concerned, is of course absolutely inexcusable. It was not brave. It was cowardly and sneaky. It goes against everything we believe in.

The honourable Member for Ottawa—Vanier has raised an absolutely legitimate point, and it was commented upon further by the honourable Member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca (Mr. David Barrett).

With respect to procedure, the fact of the matter is that under our rules, if it is a question of privilege or contempt of the House, there is an obligation that it be raised at the first opportunity. The honourable Parliamentary Secretary has followed that. However, the honourable Member for Ottawa—Vanier, who has been very frank with us all has made a suggestion, which has been especially confirmed now by the honourable House Leader of the Government (Hon. Harvie Andre), that this matter should be stood down until the honourable Member whose passes apparently were used has a chance to speak to the Chamber.

I am very conscious of the fact that the honourable Member for Ottawa—Vanier as House Leader of the Official Opposition^[2] had contacted the honourable Member. He has stood up in this House and said that the honourable Member said that he did not know that this was going to happen. That is there in front of us, but I think it is appropriate that we invite our colleague to address us further in the matter.

Again, I say, because ultimately I am responsible for the security in this place, that I am deeply disturbed that this could happen.

I say to any other Canadians who think it is smart to pull a stunt like this, that while they break the law they abuse their privileges. If they are ever in trouble, they will be calling on all of us to protect them very rapidly.

On April 27, 1990, the incident came to a conclusion. The resolution of the issue is reproduced below.

Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt): Mr. Speaker, during the last sitting of the House before Easter recess on April 11 it was suggested that I had some prior knowledge of a disturbance in the gallery after the recording of the GST vote on April 10.

To clarify this matter, I would like to say that passes were handed out by my office but that neither I nor my staff had any prior knowledge of what the two young men had planned to do.

While I may understand their frustration with the GST, the way in which they expressed their dissatisfaction is totally unacceptable to me. I do not condone and totally dissociate myself from this kind of action.

Some Hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Speaker: I want to thank the honourable Member and I think that the response to this statement indicates the appreciation of the House.^[3]

F0109-e

34-2

1990-04-11

1990-04-27