ENGLISH VERSION

Check against delivery

RULING ON THE QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE
RAISED ON APRIL 30, 2015,
BY THE MEMBER FOR SKEENA—BULKLEY VALLEY
(MR. CULLEN) AND ON MAY 8, 2015, BY THE MEMBER FOR
TORONTO—DANFORTH (MR. SCOTT)
REGARDING THE DELAY OF ACCESS OF MEMBERS TO
PARLIAMENT HILL

May 12, 2015

 1

I am now prepared to rule on the questions of
privilege raised on April 30, 2015, by the Member for Skeena
—Bulkley Valley (Mr. Cullen) and on May 8, 2015, by the
Member for Toronto—Danforth (Mr. Scott) regarding the
delays they and other Members experienced in gaining
access to Parliament Hill.
I would like to thank the Members for having raised
this matter, as well as the Leader of the Government in the
House of Commons (Mr. Van Loan), the Opposition House
Leader (Mr. Julian), the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Government House Leader (Mr. Lukiwski), and the Members
for Saanich—Gulf Islands (Ms. May), London—Fanshawe
(Ms. Mathyssen), Winnipeg North (Mr. Lamoureux), Hamilton
Centre (Mr. Christopherson), Ottawa—Vanier (Mr. Bélanger),
Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles (Mrs. Day), SaintLambert (Mrs. Groguhé) and Northumberland—Quinte West
(Mr. Norlock) for their comments.
Before we start to look at the issues that were raised,
the Chair would like to take a few seconds to deal with
comments on the timing of the questions of privilege. Some
Members alluded to the fact that some interventions were
made at a very specific moment in order to delay or prevent
business. I am sure all Members would agree that it would
be unfortunate for a subject as important as parliamentary
privilege and the right of access of Members to be trivialized
in any way, either by raising what some might call “nuisance”
questions of privilege, or by quickly dismissing outright such
claims of privilege simply because they are perceived to be
impeding the normal course of business.
In raising his question of privilege, the Member for
Skeena—Bulkley Valley explained that, on April 30, 2015, he
and several other Members were attempting to access the
parliamentary precinct through the East Block entrance in
order to attend a vote in the House when the shuttle bus they
were on was stopped temporarily by an RCMP officer. While
acknowledging the need to keep Parliament secure, the
Member insisted that this physical obstruction constituted a
denial of reasonable, timely access to the parliamentary
precinct, thereby impeding him from performing his
parliamentary duties and constituting a breach of privilege.

 2

The Government House Leader claimed that, since the
RCMP had determined that the bus in question had been
delayed for only 74 seconds, this case amounted to no more
than a momentary delay, which does not qualify as a breach
of the privileges of the House. He contended that, while
denial of access to the precinct is indeed a breach of
Members’ privileges, a delay should not be considered as
such unless it is a significant one. Calling for a measured,
reasonable perspective, the Government House Leader
explained that the privilege of access to the parliamentary
precinct is not an unqualified right, and that issues of safety
and security may temper this right of access in certain
situations.
Then, on May 8, 2015, the Member for Toronto—
Danforth complained of delayed access to Centre Block that
day by an RCMP officer. He noted that the officer had
received orders to stop all individuals from entering while a
delegation of VIPs accessed the building, orders which made
no distinction between the rights of Members of Parliament
and those of the general public. Maintaining that the length
of the delay was irrelevant, the Member for Toronto—
Danforth contended that this incident also constituted a
breach of privilege.
To begin, I will remind the House of the well-defined,
albeit limited, role of the Chair in determining matters of
privilege. O’Brien-Bosc, at page 141, states:
(quote) “Great importance is attached to matters
involving privilege. (…) The function of the Speaker is
limited to deciding whether the matter is of such a
character as to entitle the Member who has raised the
question to move a motion which will have priority over
Orders of the Day; that is, in the Speaker’s opinion,
there is a prima facie question of privilege. If there is,
the House must take the matter into immediate
consideration. Ultimately, it is the House which
decides whether a breach of privilege or a contempt
has been committed.” (unquote)

 3

The two incidents now before the House have served
as a clear reminder that Members not only require, but are
entitled to, access to the parliamentary precinct at all times,
without interference, this is uncontested.
In 2004, the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs, having considered a question of privilege
related to the physical obstruction of Members, stated in its
Twenty-First Report:
(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)
In listening to the submissions of Members on this
issue, it is clear to the Chair that the larger issue of security
in the parliamentary precinct is a major preoccupation for
Members, one that informs their perspective on individual
incidents and that now looms large given the changing
security environment on Parliament Hill as a result of the
events of October 22, 2014.
Following those events, Members will recall that I
ordered a comprehensive review of our security systems and
procedures. Parliamentary security operations have since
been tightened and have continued to evolve, leading up to
the Senate and House’s decision to unify their Protective
Services in November 2014. Then, on February 16, 2015,
the House adopted a motion calling on the Speaker of the
House, in coordination with the Speaker of the Senate :
(quote) to invite, without delay, the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police to lead operational security
throughout the Parliamentary precinct and the grounds
of Parliament Hill, while respecting the privileges,
immunities and powers of the respective Houses, and

 4

ensuring the continued employment of our existing and
respected Parliamentary Security staff; (unquote)
That the House chose to make this decision is not a
matter for the Chair to comment upon, other than to say that
from a procedural standpoint, the motion was taken up by
the House in accordance with our rules and practices and
remains a valid decision which the Speaker is bound to
implement.
Since then, considerable progress has been made
towards arriving at an agreement to have the RCMP lead
physical security services throughout the parliamentary
precinct and Parliament Hill. Yet there is no denying that
ensuring the security, in a changed world and in a changed
arrangement, for all who enter the parliamentary precinct is
going to present some challenges as we transition to the new
security regime. However, none of this obviates what I
stated in my ruling of March 15, 2012, where I confirmed the
importance of Members right of access to the precinct. I
stated 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.”
As Speaker, it is my role to support the House and its
Members as we proceed with the various changes to our
security arrangements. This includes, but is not limited to,
ensuring that any and all changes uphold the privileges,
immunities and powers of this House, as has always been
the case. Several Members have expressed concern that a
heightened level of security could lead to more incidents
where Members are unnecessarily impeded as they carry
out, or attempt to carry out, their parliamentary duties. The
incidents raised by the Members for Skeena—Bulkley Valley
and Toronto—Danforth have certainly served to highlight
those broader concerns. I would like to assure all
honourable Members that protecting the rights and privileges
of the House and of its Members is a priority for me as our
security forces continue to work in close partnership in order

 5

to provide a safe environment for all Members, parliamentary
staff and visitors to the Hill.
The Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs, in its Thirty-fourth Report regarding the free
movement of Members of Parliament within the
parliamentary precinct, summed up the challenge when it
stated:
(quote) Cases of privilege in which Members have had
their right to unimpeded access to the Parliamentary
Precinct denied have occurred in the recent past with
all too great a frequency. The Committee considers
the best solution to this issue to be improved planning,
greater coordination between partners, and increased
education and awareness of security services and
Members. (unquote)
As your Speaker, I can only agree. In fact I recently
had occasion to discuss this challenge with Commissioner
Paulson, who agrees that all 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.
At the same time, we as Members need to be mindful
that increased security does require adjustments. It may
mean that Members will notice changes that will make the
grounds and buildings safer while still ensuring that they can
carry out their work. This is consistent with a ruling I
delivered on March 15, 2012, in which I stated:
(quote) “As we all know, the Parliamentary Precinct
and its buildings exist primarily to support the functions
of the legislative branch. The Centre Block in
particular, housing as it does the House of Commons
and Senate chambers, is a ‘working building’ where
parliamentary proceedings are carried out and where
Members must be free to perform their duties without

 6

interference, even when other activities are taking
place. Needless to say, these heritage buildings,
especially Centre Block, are also ideal venues for all
sorts of events and we are all proud to showcase them
for our distinguished visitors. However (…) extra care
is needed to ensure that competing requirements
regarding the use of the buildings and precinct are
understood, with due accommodations and with the
proper balance. ”(unquote)
In this light, emphasizing the notion of balance, the
questions raised by the Leader of the Government in the
House of Commons are pertinent with regard to defining
what constitutes an impediment to unfettered access for
Members to the parliamentary precinct and buildings. It
would indeed be unfortunate for Members to carry the
concept of physical obstruction to illogical and unreasonable
lengths. However, I would caution that the House ought not
either to fall into the trap of assessing these matters on the
sole basis of the duration of a delay or impediment. One can
easily imagine a situation where even a very brief
obstruction, depending on its severity or nature, could lead a
Speaker to arrive at a prima facie finding of privilege and to
allow a debate in the House.
Therefore, for these reasons and given the arguments
presented by hon. Members and in view of the vital
importance of this issue to all Members, particularly in this
current context, I have concluded that the broader subject
matter of the rights of access of Members merits immediate
consideration. I have come to this conclusion so that the
House has the opportunity to hear the views of Members on
the balance that must be struck between the need for
reasonable and timely access to the Hill for Members and
the support and guidance this House can provide to its
security partners. This contribution will be important as we
continue to navigate the transition with which we will be
faced in the coming months.
Accordingly, I will now invite the Member for Toronto—
Danforth to move his motion.