Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of the House

Contempt of the House: disturbance in the gallery; Member’s alleged complicity

November 5, 2009

Debates, pp. 6690-1

On October 26, 2009, during Oral Questions, protesters sitting in the public galleries disrupted the proceedings of the House.^[1] On October 27, 2009, Jay Hill (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) rose on a question of privilege to charge Jack Layton (Toronto–Danforth) with contempt of the House for his alleged complicity in the disturbance. The Government House Leader stated that the protesters had been guests of the New Democratic Party Leader who had arranged for the use of a room in which they had practised the chant that they had then used to obstruct the proceedings of the House and to intimidate its Members. After hearing from other Members, the Speaker stated that, while he had been unable to see what had been happening in the gallery behind him, he would look into the incident and return to the House with a ruling. He also suggested that, in the event of a finding on his part of a breach of privileges, the Government House Leader could move a motion to refer the matter to a committee.^[2]

On November 5, 2009, Mr. Layton rose on a point of order, disavowed any responsibility for, or prior knowledge of, the actions of the protesters and invited the Government House Leader to apologize for his accusations.^[3]

On November 5, 2009, the Speaker ruled that, in keeping with the long-standing tradition of the House of taking Members at their word, and in view of Mr Layton’s disavowal of any knowledge as to the protesters’ intent, he considered the matter closed. He then reminded all Members to be vigilant about the nature and intentions of groups using parliamentary facilities under their aegis.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on October 27, 2009, by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons regarding the disturbance in the public gallery that occurred during Oral Questions on October 26, 2009.

I wish to thank the Government House Leader, the hon. Member for Mississauga South, the hon. Member for Montmorency–Charlevoix–Haute-Côte-Nord, the hon. Member for Vancouver East, and the hon. Member for Langley for their interventions.

As Members will recall, during Question Period on October 26, a disturbance occurred while the Leader of the New Democratic Party was asking a question. Several persons were shouting in the public gallery and the House had to interrupt its proceedings for several minutes while the gallery was being cleared by our security officers.

In raising his question of privilege, the Government House Leader charged the Member for Toronto–Danforth with contempt, alleging his involvement in this incident. The substance of the Government House Leader’s allegation, a version of events supported by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, is summarized in the following paragraph of his intervention, found on page 6240 of the Debates of October 27, 2009:

The leader of the protesters is the political events organizer of the NDP. His group gained access to the Parliamentary Precinct because of the leader of the NDP. The leader of the NDP provided a practice room for this group. The group was allowed to go from its practice to the galleries where it obstructed the proceedings of the House and intimidated some Members.

The Government House Leader explained that it had been reported to him that Members had felt uncomfortable and had feared for their safety.

In reply to this very serious allegation, the House Leader of the New Democratic Party emphatically denied that the Member for Toronto–Danforth was involved in the protest that occurred in the public gallery. She indicated that he was simply doing his job by meeting with the group as did other Members of Parliament, but that he had no knowledge of the planned protest.

This morning the hon. Member for Toronto–Danforth assured the House that he was not aware that a disturbance had been planned by the visitors with whom he met on October 26. He denied being involved in any way and expressed dismay that such allegations were made.

At the outset, the Chair wishes to state that it views the disruption of the proceedings of the House as a very serious matter, and as has been noted by the Government House Leader, House of Commons Procedure and Practice on page 84 states:

Speakers have consistently upheld the right of the House to the services of its Members free from intimidation, obstruction and interference.

Some Members may recall that the House experienced two gallery disturbances in 1990; both instances are most instructive in dealing with the case at hand. The first occurred on April 10, 1990, when two visitors disrupted the proceedings of the House by throwing papers from the galleries onto Members in the Chamber. The next day, a Member raised a question of privilege charging another Member with contempt of the House, alleging that he had provided passes for the protesters and had prior knowledge of the protest. On April 27, as reported on page 10760 of the Debates of the House of Commons, the Member thus charged denied such prior knowledge, thereby settling the matter.

The second case happened on October 17, 1990, when again, objects—in this case macaroni and protest cards—were thrown onto the floor of the House by protesters in the galleries. A question of privilege was raised the next day, as reported on pages 14359 to 14368 of the Debates of the House of Commons, in which a Member charged another Member with knowing in advance about the demonstration and doing nothing to prevent it. He contended that the Member was thereby an accessory to a contempt of the House. The Member who was the subject of the charge denied his involvement in the matter. In his ruling delivered on November 6, 1990, Mr. Speaker Fraser stated that as the Member had denied his involvement, that matter was at an end.

In the case presently before the House, the allegations made about the involvement of the Member for Toronto–Danforth in the gallery disturbance of October 26 have been categorically denied. In keeping with the precedents outlined above and with the long-standing tradition in this place that we accept an hon. Member’s word, the Chair accepts the statement of the hon. Member for Toronto–Danforth that he was in no way involved. Accordingly, I will therefore consider the matter closed.

Having set aside the question of privilege raised by the Government House Leader, the Chair wishes to stress that it continues to have serious concerns about the gallery disturbance itself. The actions of the sizable group of individuals in using subterfuge to gain admittance to the galleries and then to disrupt our proceedings are totally unacceptable, and do them and their cause little credit.

They were less than frank about their intentions, and the aggressive behaviour of a few individuals as they were escorted out was particularly provocative. If anything, this incident graphically illustrates the extent to which Members can be vulnerable and must be vigilant to avoid being dragged into situations when their guests abuse their trust.

Before I conclude, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the House’s security personnel for their work during the incident on October 26. Their swift action in clearing the public gallery under difficult circumstances allowed the House to resume its work with a minimum of delay.

I would like to thank all of my colleagues for their attention.