The crab protestors behaviour moved the provincial government today to invoke new security precautions at the Confederation Building requiring visitors to produce picture identification cards of any kind in order to gain entry to the building.
Predictably, and indeed understandably, the Opposition is protesting the move arguing that the change was introduced unilaterally by the government and, in effect, breaches privileges of members of the House of Assembly. The House is located in the building and one must gain entry to the building to gain entry to the House.
No sensible person would argue with the need to provide security for the House of Assembly. Any members of any parliament must be free from intimidation by force or threats of force. Strong action must be taken to ensure that public debate on the floor of the legislature can continue unfettered either by mob or by the Crown.
The crab protestors are being a mob and they must be prevented from taking the House on their back, as the saying goes, while still enjoying their free speech outside the House chamber. By tradition and sensible custom, the only people who speak in the legislature are its elected members and those called before the bar of the House. Everyone else, except for House staff, are strangers and are admitted, not as a matter of right, but as a matter of privilege. When the House is closed for six days in a row because of thuggery, then our entire democracy is being driven by brute force and testosterone rather than reason and sense.
That said, the legislature is in control of its own fate and each member is equal to every other member when it comes to matters of House procedure. The House, as a whole, controls its precincts.
By taking unilateral action to control access to the building which Houses the legislature, the Premier (or the government) has taken the House on his own back. This is as intolerable as the crab protestors' actions, no matter how well-intentioned the Premier might be.
Simply put, the Premier can neither bar nor impede access to the legislature through decree or any action of government without the concurrence of the legislature. It may be within his legal powers, but this is solely by virtue of physical construction not legal ones. He should not be using one power to gain another which he legitimately does not possess.
In his own defence, the Premier said that the protestors were blocking the operations of government or words to that effect. Not so. Government offices are not being affected by the crab protestors. The legislature is. This is a significant distinction. The Premier may be the government or the head of the government, but he is not the head of the legislature. He may be first among equals, theoretically in cabinet. Inside the House he is merely another member with a special seat. He enjoys no special status over the operation of the House whatsoever.
The Premier ought to have brought the matter before the House during the private session prior to the admission of strangers or through the appropriate House committee. His failure to do so undermines the effective operation of the House. It robs members of their powers and in so doing promotes frustration and discontent that may well spill over into other areas as members seek to regain lost influence.
The Commons in Ottawa has descended to a yakking pit largely due to the self-interested action of one or another group; the House of Assembly cannot be allowed to go the same way on purpose or through neglect.
Curiously, neither the Speaker nor the Government House leader have used the standing orders of the House to proper effect.
In some British-style legislatures, the old cry "I spy strangers" by any member was sufficient to have non-members removed from the precincts of the House (including the galleries). Westminster has eliminated this practice. It remains in force in the House of Assembly in Standing Order 22. It would only take one member spat upon or with gum in his hair to cry "I spy strangers". The Speaker is required to immediately put a motion 'That strangers do now withdraw", without debate. If the motion is passed, the House must be cleared of all but its own staff. Since the televised proceedings may be considered part of Hansard the broadcast can proceed uninterrupted thereby giving wider public access to the proceedings than the mere presence of individuals in the gallery.
Under SO 23, though, there is a more pertinent rule. "Any stranger admitted into any part of the House or gallery, who misconducts himself or herself, or who does not withdraw when strangers are directed to withdraw, while the House, or any Committee of the Whole House, is sitting, shall be taken into custody by the Sergeant-at-Arms and no person so taken into custody shall be discharged without a special order of the House." [Emphasis added]
The Speaker already has ample power to prevent disruptions in the House caused by strangers. The members also have the ability to prevent disruption. Their failure to exercise the powers they enjoy is no excuse for petty bureaucratic efforts that circumvent the privileges of elected members of the legislature.
The Speaker's explanation in today is that he had taken advice from the Sergeant at Arms and other officials such as police. He accepted the idea of requiring picture identification cards of all people entering the building. As he put it in the House: "The Speaker has had consultations with the Sergeant-at-Arms and with the other civil authorities in the last numbers of days, and security to this House and within the parliamentary precinct is, indeed, a concern for the Speaker and for all members in this House.
I want to say to all members, based on the recommendations that the Speaker has received from the Sergeant-at-Arms and from the civil authorities, that there will be a voluntary requirement today for a photo ID. On tomorrow, I do believe notice has been given, it will be a general requirement for all visitors to the parliamentary precinct."
The Speaker is right in saying that security is a concern of all members. However, the standing orders do not appear to delegate to the Speaker the right to make decisions unilaterally on safety and security. To have endorsed the security changes without advising all members is intolerable.
The House has given to the Speaker such authority and power as he needs to maintain order. He needs only to exercise his authority appropriately. He has failed to do so and this calls into question his overall performance in this affair.
Mr. Speaker is historically the chief guardian over members' rights. To take it a step further, by taking any action affecting access to the House without advising all members equally and in a timely way, the Speaker himself has breached the privileges of members. He has taken the House on his back in a way which is even more dangerous than the actions of the others.
I may risk a citation for contempt on this point, but until I have advice to the contrary, I conclude that Mr. Speaker has acted improperly. He should apologize publicly or resign without delay.
For his part, the Government House Leader, when he finally rose to address a point of privilege cited comments made by the former premier, Roger Grimes following 9/11. What Mr. Byrne failed to point out is that the heightened security measures imposed at the time did not include restrictions on the House of Assembly or indeed of government buildings other than that visitors sign into a log book. Mr. Byrne's point is irrelevant and ignores a more substantial failure of the House generally to secure order for its proceedings. As Government House Leader he ought to know better.
It seems odd to me that no person has been thrown in jail over this whole affair and left there legally until the whole matter settles down. Ringleaders of riots used to be identified as "every fifth man"; the same might apply here. Let the lawyers sort it out after order has been restored. If the Sergeant at Arms and her assistants cannot make order, then the police may be called.
One way or another, the House rules must be applied to preserve the proper, democratic and effective functioning of the legislature.
But most importantly, let no one - neither Premier, nor Speaker nor pot-hauler - seize control of the legislature irrespective of the motives.
The legislature is the body of our democracy. Its proper operation is the spine.
Anyone who treats the legislature with contempt and disrespect treats me as a voter in the same way.
He or she ought to vacate its premises, stranger or no.
