ENGLISH VERSION

Check against delivery

RULING ON THE QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE

RAISED ON MARCH 22, 2017,

BY THE MEMBER FOR MILTON (MS. RAITT)

REGARDING DELAYED ACCESS TO

THE PARLIAMENTARY PRECINCT

April 6, 2017
 1

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised

on March 22, 2017, by the Member for Milton (Ms. Raitt) 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 (Mr. Bernier), Perth

Wellington (Mr. Nater) and Hamilton Centre (Mr. Christopherson)

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

 2

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 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 the, 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

 3

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 9 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 enquiries 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 is at around

this time that a vote was commencing in the House.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition,

on page 110, states:

(quote) 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 (unquote)

The importance of the matter of Members access to the

precinct, particularly when there are votes for Members to attend,

 4

cannot be overstated. It bears repeating that even a temporary

denial of access, whether there is a vote or not, cannot be

tolerated. 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

Parliamentary Protective Service staff are always alert to changing

circumstances in this regard.

This was stressed as long ago as 2004, when, in its twenty

first report, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House

Affairs stated:

(quote) 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. (unquote)

 5

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

of Debates:

(quote) the implementation of security measures cannot

override the right of Members to unfettered access to the

parliamentary precinct, free from obstruction or interference.

(unquote)

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 13760 of Debates that protective personnel:

(quote) 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. (unquote)

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

 6

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.