Subscribe to our Newsletter

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Point of Privilege: Obstructing a Member in Performance of Duty

Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to offer some comments and arguments on this particular point of privilege raised by the Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. The Official Opposition, of course, has a keen interest in the outcome of this as, in fact, the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Official Opposition critic on seniors had preceded the leader of the third party to this particular government occasion and had likewise been obstructed from entering the premises and instructed to leave.

Mr. Speaker, I think this question of privilege is about interference. The way I see it, there are two issues to this. One is the obstruction in being able to enter the facilities. The second is whether the members were impeded in their work. In the case of our two members being refused access, their way being barred in attempting to participate in the media conference, was their privilege as members of this House breached? We have some historical background to that. Particularly, in Beauchesne 24 it talks about: The privileges of Parliament are rights which are “absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers”. They are enjoyed by individual Members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members. In addition to that, I am guided by what appears in Marleau and Montpetit on page 55, in which it notes, “Thus, privilege came to be recognized as only that which was absolutely necessary for the House to function effectively and for the Members to carry out their responsibilities as Members.”

I think that what is at the heart of this matter is the obstruction to Government House. If I may refer the Speaker to M and M, page 51, “The House has the authority to invoke privilege where its ability has been obstructed in the execution of its functions or where Members have been obstructed in the performance of their duties.” Certainly, I think that to have an Official Opposition leader, a leader of a third party, and an Official Opposition critic attempting to attend a significant announcement of a change in government policy is part of the performance of their duty.

Further, I note that on page 65 of Marleau and Montpetit, referencing a report during the 13th Parliament, a special committee stated that “the purpose of privilege was ‘to allow Members of the House of Commons to carry out their duties as representatives of the electorate without undue interference’.” I argue that the barring of the way to the Government House media conference is undue interference. Their way was obstructed on the instructions of the government.

Finally, I note on page 85 of Marleau and Montpetit:

In circumstances where Members claim to be directly obstructed, impeded, interfered with or intimidated in the performance of their parliamentary duties, the Speaker is apt to find that a prima facie breach of privilege has occurred. This may be physical obstruction, assault or molestation.

Further, appearing on that same page is the reference that

on October 30, 1989, Speaker Fraser ruled that a prima facie case of privilege existed when [the then Member for Windsor West,] Herb Gray…raised a question of privilege claiming that a RCMP roadblock on Parliament Hill, meant to contain demonstrators, constituted a breach of Members’ privileges [because it denied] them access to the House of Commons.

We recognize a number of locations where members carry out their duties. This Assembly, this Chamber, is one. Where committees meet is a second. I believe Government House would be included in that as a place where we do business. The Annex to the Legislative Assembly is another place where members carry out their parliamentary duties and carry on their business. So this Chamber is not the only location, not the only precinct in which that business is carried out. I argue that barring a member’s entry into any of those other locations I’ve outlined is an unnecessary obstruction and does impede the member’s ability to perform their parliamentary duties. Of course, the roles of the Official Opposition and of other parties are recognized throughout Marleau and Montpetit, Beauchesne’s, Maingot, and a number of others. I won’t go on with various references that outline the duties of the Official Opposition there.

I think there is an argument that the physical obstruction and denial of access to the location did in this case constitute a breach of several members’ privilege. I would argue that the Premier has in fact recognized that. But while I appreciate that this individual is the Premier, I would prefer to see the ruling come through the Speaker, which sets that out in Hansard and is able to be referenced henceforth by those of us in the House now and those that follow behind us, that members should not be impeded, physically particularly, in their attempts to carry out their work.

I think what’s important here is the members’ ability to access that policy announcement. The further communication and dealings with the media I am not as certain, in fact, are part of the members’ businesses. It certainly is something we all engage in and that many of us are particularly enthusiastic to seek out. But the work that we do as legislators is a work that is focused on policy; it is focused on legislative development; it’s focused on consultation with the citizens. That is the work that I think was impeded when the Leader of the Official Opposition, the Official Opposition critic for seniors, and the leader of the third party were barred access to the public policy announcement in Government House last week.

Thank you for the opportunity to present my points.