Negotiating Public Space on Canada's Parliament Hill: Security, Protests, Parliamentary Privilege, and Public Access
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Negotiating Public Space on Canada’s Parliament Hill:
Security, Protests, Parliamentary Privilege, and Public
Access
Anne Dance
Journal of Canadian Studies/Revue d'études canadiennes, Volume 48, Number
2, Spring 2014, pp. 169-197 (Article)
Published by University of Toronto Press
For additional information about this article
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/553729
[ Access provided at 30 Jun 2022 18:58 GMT with no institutional affiliation ]Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes
Negotiating Public Space on
Canada’s Parliament Hill:
Security, Protests, Parliamentary Privilege,
and Public Access
ANNE DANCE
This interdisciplinary essay shows how Canadian scholarship could benefit from a greater under-
standing of public space on Parliament Hill and the people who organize and use the Parliamen-
tary precinct. It argues that the values and stories Canadians create about the Hill influence key
institutional actors who in turn shape events and interactions that unfold every day around the
precinct. While space on the Hill is heavily regulated, the precinct acts as a public space because
many of the individuals charged with its management perceive and organize it like one, and
because Canadians committed to saving abandoned cats, visiting the Peace Tower, or demon-
strating for social change use it like one. Nevertheless, interventions by parliamentarians as well
as multi-billion-dollar renovations necessitated by the precinct’s crumbling physical infrastructure
threaten to reconfigure debates permanently about who can access the Hill.
Cet article interdisciplinaire montre comment les universitaires canadiens pourraient bénéficier
d’une meilleure compréhension de l’espace public sur la colline du Parlement et des gens qui
organisent et utilisent la Cité parlementaire. L’article avance que les valeurs et les histoires créées
par les Canadiens à propos de la Colline influent sur les principaux acteurs institutionnels qui
façonnent les événements et interactions qui se déroulent quotidiennement dans la Cité. Bien
que l’espace sur la Colline soit très réglementé, la Cité est représentée comme un espace public
parce que plusieurs individus responsables de sa gestion perçoivent et organisent celle-ci en tant
que tel, et parce que les Canadiens qui souhaitent sauver les chats abandonnés, visiter la Tour de
la Paix ou organiser des démonstrations pour favoriser le changement social l’utilisent de cette
façon. Quoi qu’il en soit, les interventions par les membres du Parlement ainsi que les rénovations
de plusieurs milliards de dollars requises par l’infrastructure physique en mauvais état de la Cité
risquent de reconfigurer de façon permanente les débats sur l’accès à la Colline.
Copyright © Journal of Canadian Studies. All rights reserved.
Copyright © Revue d’études canadiennes. Tous droits réservés.
Volume 48 • Number 2 • Spring 2014 | Volume 48 • numéro 2 • printemps 2014 169Anne Dance
I n 1997, a man entering Parliament Hill’s Centre Block caused significant alarm. The
reason for this was that the individual in question had neglected to exit his vehicle
before making his entrance. The sight of a Jeep on the steps of Centre Block spurred
a fierce but by no means new debate about security on the Hill. Following the distur-
bance, veteran political journalist Charles Gordon condemned calls to increase Hill
security, arguing that how we manage public space reflects Canadian values: “[Protest-
ers] don’t have to be walled off and searched,” Gordon wrote in Maclean’s. He contin-
ued, “[Instead] they can walk right up and chat with MPs [members of Parliament] and
even ministers. They can demonstrate against them, in fact, on the very steps that the
guy drove up.... Isn’t that great?” (1997, 11). Gordon argued that opening Hill grounds
to protesters created a public space, one that was inherently positive for the country’s
democracy.
Since the Jeep incident, other journalists and political commentators have also
invoked the physical space of the Parliamentary Precinct to discuss broader themes
in Canadian politics. For example, the decision to relocate the Prime Minister’s Office
(PMO) from the East Block to Langevin Block across the street during Pierre Elliott
Trudeau’s mandate is cited as proof of the executive branch’s growing influence, a
popular topic amongst scholars and journalists alike (Thompson 2002, A13; Docherty
2004; Malcolmson and Myers 2012; Savoie 1999; D.E. Smith 2007). Pundits have also
interpreted legislators’ physical absence from their provincial or federal assemblies
due to frequent prorogations as a sign of flagging democratic accountability (Minsky
2013). Such references have been relatively shallow and have failed to consider the
grounds themselves, protesters, or other parliamentarians, however. Political scientist
Margaret Kohn decries the work of political theory that, by focussing solely on speech
and neglecting space, has “turn[ed] the public sphere into an abstraction” (2001, 76).
A similar criticism could be made of contemporary discussions of Parliament Hill.
Research on the architecture and construction of the Parliament Buildings likewise
neglects any critical analysis of the use and management of Hill space (Phillips 1982,
2-6; Lawrence 2001).
This essay provides a foray into how political science and historical research could
benefit from a greater understanding of public space on the Hill and the people who
organize and use the Parliamentary Precinct every day. H.V. Nelles notes that studying
Quebec’s tercentenary celebrations helped him illuminate new facets of history: “In
this theatre, things I had only grasped in general ways or in abstract terms acquired
an immediacy they previously lacked” (1999, 12). The same can be said of today—
every day—on Parliament Hill, where the grounds and buildings provide space for
surprisingly fluid debates about Canadian values and identity. For example, historian
Matthew Hayday has demonstrated how bureaucrats used Parliament’s Canada Day
170Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes
celebrations as a stage to deliver deliberately a liberal vision of the country from the
mid-twentieth century onwards (2010, 312-14). Hayday argues that the content and
conveyance of this message changed as bilingualism, the military, diversity, and
regional representation waxed and waned. Like Hayday’s study, this essay explores
what the deliberate management of the Hill reveals about Canadian values, be they
calculated or spontaneous.
Instead of examining a specific event like Canada Day, this essay heeds Nicholas
Blomley’s call to focus on how people move around urban spaces by asking how indi-
viduals and groups access the Parliamentary Precinct, and the managed complexity
this entails (2011, 27). It also draws from John A. Parkinson’s examination of public
space in 11 national capitals; Parkinson argues that true public space must be openly
accessible, consume collective resources, have common impacts, and provide a stage
for performing public roles (2012, 202-12). The public policy specialist found that
Ottawa compared favourably to its international counterparts, placing behind only
Berlin and Wellington according to these criteria. Indeed, Parkinson argues that the
Hill itself stands out because its parliamentarians directly intervene to protect the pub-
lic’s access (142). While Parkinson’s work provides a valuable starting point, this inter-
disciplinary essay nuances his claims by delving deeper into the day-to-day debates
around Hill management and identifying the many groups and individuals who shape
these discussions.
First, this essay looks at how the Parliamentary Precinct relates to theories of
public space in Canadian history. While public space can help democracy flourish,
it is also alive with different power regimes, conflict, and contradictions based on the
assumptions and motivations of historical actors; this is true of the Parliamentary
Precinct. Next, this essay explores the organization and use of Hill space in the early
twenty-first century by considering how institutional actors interpret their role in its
management. A 2007 Canadian government document claims that several guiding
principles shape the Hill: the site’s symbolic role; its heritage value; the area’s natural
environment; respect for the boundaries of the Parliamentary Precinct; accessibility;
facilitating “harmonious” patterns of use; ensuring interconnections; and stewardship
(Canada 2007, 6). In practical terms, however, individuals such as current House of
Commons sergeant-at-arms Kevin Vickers determine how these guiding principles
are protected and understood. The values and stories Canadians create about the Hill
influence these institutional actors, and they in turn shape the events and interactions
that unfold every day around the precinct. Within his influential and contentious writ-
ings about social capital and political engagement, Robert D. Putnam claims that some
protests are now “so routine that police and demonstrators [are] joint choreographers”
(2000, 152). While Parliament Hill is often a choreographed place, it is also a space for
negotiated compromise and accommodation.
171Anne Dance
Sources such as parliamentary publications, newspaper articles, and committee
hearings reveal four concerns that are frequently debated when attempting to manage
Hill space. In his magazine article, Charles Gordon raised two of these concerns: secu-
rity and protest. Parliamentary privilege, a set of rules unique to Parliament, is also a
major consideration, as is public access to Hill grounds and buildings. When weigh-
ing the relative importance of these different priorities, institutional actors—including
security personnel and parliamentarians—interpret their roles and responsibilities
based on what they understand to be worthy and widely held national values. Parlia-
ment Hill’s ability to function as a public space is contingent upon the constant rene-
gotiation of these values. Thus the Hill is a public space in part because many citizens,
parliamentarians, and other institutional actors continue to treat it as one. Legal expert
Jamie Chai Yun Liew argues that judicial interrogations of public space and protest
should focus not only on competing rights, but also on those that lend themselves to
compromise; a unique sort of equilibrium between such rights is often evident on the
Hill (2012). That said, spurred on in part by parliamentarians’ safety concerns and
ongoing renovations, mechanisms crafted to prevent violent altercations are increas-
ingly weakening access to the Hill, endangering the Parliamentary Precinct’s effective-
ness as a public space.
Public Space and the Hill
Framed by Wellington Street and rugged cliffs overlooking the Ottawa River, the
Parliament Buildings sit atop a plateau and formal esplanade. Although East Block,
West Block, and Centre Block with its iconic Peace Tower are the most recognizable
elements of Parliament Hill, the greater Parliamentary Precinct comprises over two
dozen additional buildings along Wellington Street and the Sparks Street Mall (Young
1995, 90). In practical terms, the Hill is used by protesters and other members of the
public, safeguarded by layers of security, and accessed daily as a workplace by politi-
cians, their staff, and civil servants. The Parliamentary Precinct is home to language
testing facilities, press gallery rooms, restaurants and cafeterias, building mainte-
nance operations, offices dedicated to parliamentary publications, fast-moving mes-
sengers and mini-buses, and translation, postal, and printing services. Its buildings
are plagued by structural failings and continued asbestos hazards (Raphael 2012a).
The Parliamentary Precinct consists of more than a cluster of crumbling build-
ings, however. Like other highly visible historic sites, the Hill has become a map of
a people’s cultural history, and everything from the statue of the Famous Five to the
Eternal Flame exposes and constructs ideas of Canadian identity. Descriptions of the
Hill frequently reach great rhetorical heights that have thus far gone unmatched by
172Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes
funding for Canadian monuments and symbolic infrastructure in Canada’s capital
(Tammemagi 2002, 2; Gordon and Osborne 2004). Still, the site’s widely acknowl-
edged symbolic value accounts for why the content of Hill activities (such as seasonal
light shows) can be contentious, and have even been linked to wider political debates
about teaching Canadian history (Cook 2013, C1; Butler 2013a, 2013b). Similarly,
when Chief Theresa Spence of the Attawapiskat First Nation began her hunger
strike protesting the federal government’s treatment of her people, she did this from
Asinabka (also known as Victoria Island) on the Ottawa River, sacred Algonquin
land. Spence’s choice of locale, which is visible from the windows of some Parlia-
ment Buildings, underlined the juxtaposition between the Canadian government’s
treaty commitments and her community’s struggles (Adam 2013, C2).
The Hill’s symbolic value is undeniable, but is it a public space? Public spaces
allow for popular encounters and free speech. In Canada, they have been shaped by
common-law rights of way, nuisance principles, and police powers. Understandings
of the purpose of public space have varied over time as people and groups prioritized
social interaction, aesthetic appeal, sustainability, security, accessibility, or unimpeded
travel (Isin 2000; Blomley 2011, 8, 15). For instance, Blomley’s discussion of the regu-
lation of North American sidewalks shows that the “distinct logic” of “pedestrianism”
influenced urban engineers to promote “the orderly movement of pedestrians from
point a to point b” for increased efficiency (3-4, 11). Public space has also been valued
for its role in good governance. Kohn notes that public space and free speech are abso-
lutely essential for successful democracies “because they disrupt the consensus that
we have already reached too easily.” She writes that “while reasonable arguments often
just reinforce distance, public space establishes proximity.… Provocative speech can-
not be something that happens elsewhere” (2001, 76). Parkinson argues that this is
particularly true of national assemblies, since decision-makers can much more readily
disregard letters to the editor than mass demonstrations beneath their office windows
(2012, 42).
Public space is not a twentieth-century phenomenon: Ian Radforth illustrates how
the physical spaces of Upper Canada were host to violence and dramatic spectacles
that consistently complicated political culture (2011). Historians like Craig Heron,
Steve Penfold, Julia Roberts, and Cole Harris have likewise shown that public space
has long been contested and controversial, home to tensions between public and pri-
vate spheres, and possessing a purpose and identity shaped by many different stake-
holders rather than any top-down assignment of values (Heron and Penfold 1996, 359;
Roberts 2008; Harris 2010). A particularly striking example comes from Nelles, who
observes that during Quebec’s tercentenary celebrations, the streets were home to con-
flicting ideas as French and English “armies” fought through historical re-enactments:
173Anne Dance
“I could see several different authors at work and many audiences making choices as
to what they wanted to see and take away … more often than not we are plural, and
opinion about identity and destiny is divided” (1999, 12-13). Similarly, Ronald Rudin
found no calculated, monopolistic manipulation of historical memory while research-
ing celebrations held in honour of Bishop Laval and Samuel de Champlain at the turn
of the nineteenth century (2003, 4-5, 61).
Frequently, the rationale behind the organization of public space is ambiguous,
and careful planning does not necessarily translate into ordered space. This is the case
on the Hill: although a recent government document emphasizes its “cohesive order
and unified image,” the Parliamentary Precinct’s organization is not so readily defined
(Canada 2007, 23). Parkinson notes that the Hill’s spatial arrangements, like those at
assemblies in Mexico City, Washington, Wellington, and Berlin, are more accessible
and open than fragmentary, and support direct interaction between politicians and
citizens (2012, 161). Individuals and groups can express their political views, com-
memorate past events, or simply relax with a quick game of Frisbee. In this way, Par-
liament Hill remains a liminal place, home to multiple messages, ideas, values—and
even, occasionally, conversations.
Institutional actors also matter enormously in the creation and protection of
public spaces. Peter Goheen writes that in 1840s Toronto, citizens, bureaucrats, and
politicians all participated in changing the values attributed to public places (1994,
446). These values were not overtly “assigned or legislated by any government author-
ity”; instead, citizens (primarily propertied White men) “were intimately involved in
the process by which this visible and much claimed space acquired meaning” (430).
Although Parliament Hill is administered and managed according to a key set of sym-
bolic principles, it is worth asking how men and women choose to interpret these
ideas. While supporting the work of parliamentarians, institutional actors such as
current House of Commons sergeant-at-arms Kevin Vickers also wield considerable
influence in how Canadians access the Hill. A former Royal Canadian Mounted Police
(RCMP) officer, Vickers reports to Parliament’s most senior official, the clerk of the
House of Commons, Audrey O’Brien, and answers to parliamentarians through the
committee process.
While officers of Parliament such as the auditor general and parliamentary budget
officer have garnered considerable media attention for their role in scrutinizing gov-
ernment, less is known about other staff serving Parliament (Thomas 2003, 287-314).1
Vickers’s duties as sergeant-at-arms have included controlling access to the House of
Commons, preserving order on the Hill, and managing parliamentary buildings. Vick-
ers follows a long history of serjeants at arms in the UK, where the monarch appointed
the first man to the position for life in 1415; his role involved enforcing the orders of the
174Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes
House of Commons (Ryle 1981). In the early twenty-first century, the Canadian House
of Commons sergeant-at-arms acts under the auspices of the House Speaker and leads
the Parliamentary Precinct services. Often former military officers, sergeants-at-arms
tend to outlast governments of any political stripe; of the nine previous sergeants-at-
arms, the average officer spent 18 years in the position, with the longest-serving, Mau-
rice Gaston Cloutier, working 27 years in that capacity (Library of Parliament 2014a).
Since his own appointment to the post in 2006, Vickers has interpreted his mandate
according to values he holds to be important to Canadians. In doing so, he counteracts
some of the increasing pressure to reduce public space on the Hill.
Security
Hill security is more visible on some days than others. During newly inaugurated Pres-
ident Barack Obama’s visit to Canada in 2009, a crowd of hundreds celebrated and
protested on Hill grounds as snipers watched from the roofs of West Block and East
Block (Ditchburn 2009). President Obama’s visit heralded some of the most vigorous
Hill security efforts, but testimony before the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs on 3 May 2012 showed that the site is regularly monitored and policed
even on more mundane days (PROC 2012, 1105). Multiple groups share responsibility
for Parliamentary Precinct security. The Ottawa Police Service has jurisdiction over
the streets around the Hill, the Ottawa Paramedic Service and the Ottawa Fire Services
operate on-site, and the Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC) is
also involved. The Senate and the House of Commons have their own independent
security services responsible for the interior of the buildings, while the RCMP handle
the grounds outside. These organizations jointly maintain a secure facility in Ottawa’s
east end, where security personnel monitor video feeds and strategize emergency
planning measures (MacCharles 2013, A6). Although precinct grounds are technically
the responsibility of the RCMP, Vickers notes that “through tradition and practice,
the sergeant-at-arms has always been consulted” and exercises considerable control
(2009). In addition, the various security services and the RCMP train together and
operate co-operatively.
Hill security has not always been so strict: from 1930 until 1935, House of Com-
mons Speaker and Yukon MP George Black casually shot rabbits from his office win-
dow with a .22 calibre pistol, publicizing a particularly successful day by calling in the
media (Tammemagi 2002, 11). Numerous incidents during the last century, however,
suggest that sound security is very much necessary on Parliament Hill (Fletcher 2011,
A1). One of the most extreme examples took place during Question Period in May
1966, when Paul Joseph Chartier entered a men’s washroom outside the House of
175Anne Dance
Commons and accidentally set off five sticks of dynamite tucked under his coat; he
had intended to launch them at the government benches. Lester B. Pearson, the prime
minister at the time, was handed a note a few minutes later, and Question Period
continued (Hanlon 2007; Ward 2012). Added threats to the functioning of Parliament
come from cyberattacks and public health issues, such as the H1N1 flu pandemic
(PROC 2009, 1129; Standing House Committee on Health 2009, 1630-45). Activists
co-ordinating Hill protests through social media have further complicated Hill secu-
rity and surveillance efforts.
Measures taken to address perceived security gaps have not always been well
received. Audrey O’Brien, who also served as acting sergeant-at-arms from 2005 to
2006, took note of “a certain frustration on the part of members with the tangled,
labyrinthine web of security forces, [and] security directives” during the meeting of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on 3 May 2012 (PROC 2012,
1232). Vickers likewise receives numerous complaints from parliamentarians about
disruptions caused by extensive security measures (2009). At the same time, concern
about the safety of the Hill has been evident in Question Period and committees over
the past dozen years, with partisan accusations that the other side—be it an opposition
party or the government—has behaved irresponsibly. Following a security breach in
2002, British Columbia Reform MP John Reynolds alleged on 21 November that the
office of the government House leader, a Liberal, had actively helped an individual gain
access to Centre Block to demonstrate against former prime minister Brian Mulroney
(Taber 2002, A8; House of Commons 2002, 1432). In 2006, Quebec Liberal MP Mar-
cel Proulx was equally willing to play the blame game, albeit more vaguely, predicting
that “the more the Conservative government is taking positions, for example, in the
Middle East, the more a target we [on Parliament Hill] could be” (Vongdouangchanh
2006, 14). Three years later, in November 2009, a similar theme dominated Question
Period as Tory MPs accused New Democratic Party (NDP) MPs of providing encour-
agement and Hill access to disruptive youth environmentalists (Delacourt 2009, A5).
While the physical space of Parliament Hill is used as a pawn in the heated terrain
of political legitimacy, anxieties about security remain. After the Jeep incident, which
notably occurred before the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States, Charles Gordon
decried the “security-obsessed ... a small group who are made to feel more important
by the severity of measures set up to protect them [and who] set up elaborate systems
to keep the public at a distance” (1997, 11). This is not a new phenomenon: in 1969,
high-profile protests spurred some Parliamentarians to request increased security,
including metal detectors and bulletproof glass around the public galleries (Sethna
and Hewitt 2009, 493). Contemporary parliamentarians have been equally quick to
call for reduced public access in favour of security. In 2006, for example, Liberal MP
176Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes
Proulx argued that “We’re still a well-run democracy but the [security] risks are height-
ened and we have to deal with that. It might mean going through an underground
tunnel ... to protect everyone on the Hill” (quoted in Vongdouangchanh 2006, 14).
Six years later, Ontario Conservative MP Gordon O’Connor observed on 2 March that
“this is not the 1800s any more [and] we have many threats of terrorism from all over
the place.… There will always be difficulty in finding a balance between security and
access” (House of Commons 2012, 1323). Parkinson argues that Canadian parliamen-
tarians are some of “the most vociferous defenders of citizens’ rights to [Hill] access,”
but a close reading of committee hearings suggests this is not always the case (2012,
142).
Recent events like the attempted bombing of the British Columbia legislature
have encouraged journalists to re-examine the continued challenge of ensuring secu-
rity and public access, often echoing law enforcement officers’ claims that increased
security is inevitable (CBC News 2013a; MacCharles 2013); yet negotiations around Hill
space show that such assumptions are premature. Although many MPs and senators
have asked the sergeant-at-arms to adopt new types of security approaches such as
those employed in Washington, DC, Vickers remains unconvinced: “A lot of the infra-
structure stuff looks great, gives you that sense of security,” he observes. He asks, how-
ever, “How much safer are you really? Because from a critical thinking perspective it’s
not necessarily [more secure]” (2009). Vickers questions new methods because they
necessitate unacceptable trade-offs in accommodating other uses of the Hill, including
public protests.
Protests
Outside the Parliament Buildings, protesters gather every day “to wave placards, shout
slogans, and otherwise exercise [their] democratic rights” (Tammemagi 2002, 7).
Unlike other legislatures that lack substantial space for protests (such as Minneapolis)
or where protesters’ ground-level areas are extremely exposed to aggressive state police
(like Bangkok), Hill protests occur on the pathways in front of Centre Block, which
is currently home to both Houses of Parliament (Parkinson 2012, 43). High-profile
Hill protests have included annual anti-abortion / pro-life demonstrations, semi-nude
environmental rights activists promoting veganism, researchers protesting govern-
ment funding cuts, and an offshoot of the 2011 Occupy Wall Street movement. Dem-
onstrators have also breached Parliament’s walls, such as when Greenpeace activists
scaled West Block scaffolding in 2009 to hang a banner, and two years later when a
rogue Senate page disrupted Governor General David Johnston’s first Throne Speech
by holding a “Stop Harper” sign (Dawson 2013; Raj 2011, 2012; Mittelstaedt 2009;
Fitzpatrick 2012). Even the airspace above the Hill is home to activism: an aerial Public
177Anne Dance
Service Alliance of Canada protest in September 2012 led to debates about the extent
and surveillance of the Parliamentary Precinct’s no-fly zone (Pearson 2012). Canadian
writer Hans Tammemagi notes that, in general, increased Hill security “is a good clue
that something interesting is about to happen” (2002, 93). Testifying before a House
committee on 8 May 2012, RCMP assistant commissioner James Malizia reported that
more than 300 demonstrations occurred on Parliament Hill in 2011, with 12 of these
posing “significant security challenges because of the violent or aggressive behaviour
of some demonstrators” (PROC 2012, 1105).
Hill protest policing is largely characterized by co-operative, negotiated manage-
ment and guided by the Public Works Nuisances Regulations (CUPH 2012). These regu-
lations ban loitering and camping on Parliament Hill, making sit-ins very difficult. In
order to protest or conduct other activities on the Hill, groups must apply for a permit
and provide their contact details, an outline of their protest plans (including whether
they require access to electricity or space for equipment transfers), and wait for at least
10 business days for permission. Permit applications are considered by the Committee
on the Use of Parliament Hill, which includes speakers and security staff from both
Houses of Parliament, in addition to the RCMP: “If someone wants to demonstrate
on the Hill they simply have to fill out the form and see how it goes,” Vickers states.
He outlines a collaborative procedure: “Each one of us has a look at it and we sign off
... it’s a collective management of the grounds” (2009). After the committee gives its
consent, Vickers and his team negotiate with protesters to ensure that their aims are
met without disrupting parliamentary functions or parliamentary privilege.
This conversational approach contrasts with the RCMP’s response to previous
Parliamentary Precinct protests. In their study of declassified RCMP files, Christabelle
Sethna and Steve Hewitt focus on that organization’s surveillance of the Vancouver
Women’s Caucus Abortion Caravan, a women’s liberation group objecting to a new
abortion law (2009). In 1969, the activists chained themselves to seats in the House
gallery; one woman threw a water balloon near Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau’s chair
while another seized control of the Common Chamber’s translation service. Costumed
in tidy, feminine apparel, the women successfully eluded the “gendered red-tinged
prism” of Cold War surveillance that was endemic in the RCMP (Sethna and Hewitt
2009, 494). At that time, the Mounties could not reconcile preconceived ideas about
male, Communist security threats with the women’s goals or their garb.
The police’s perplexed response to the Abortion Caravan is striking when com-
pared with Vickers’s current approach to protests. On the Hill today, negotiations with
protesters are normally straightforward. First Vickers, police, and the RCMP identify
and arrange to meet the leaders listed in the application: “Now what would you like
to do here?” Vickers asks them (2009). The objective is to balance security with the
178Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes
protesters’ goals: “If we help you facilitate what you wish to do ... to avoid conflict [and]
disruptions and at the same time you get to do what you want to do to get your mes-
sage across ... is that something that is doable for you?” Sometimes the negotiations
take days, but eventually a compromise is reached. When protesters break these rules,
the application form notes, they are barred from holding events on the Hill in the
future (CUPH 2012, 6). Protesters are further cautioned that “the RCMP remains on
site 24 hours a day and is authorized to take appropriate action against anyone being a
public nuisance” (3). For example, Conservative interns and staffers protesting against
Liberal leader Justin Trudeau in 2013 had neglected to start or complete the protest
permit process, and left the area after the RCMP informed them of this (Raj 2013).
A recent compilation on Canadian social movements observed that “the hege-
mony of the liberal order” has consistently curtailed protest and activism (Hammond-
Callaghan and Hayday 2008, 15-16). An attempt to bridge the gap between political
and social historians, Ian McKay’s influential liberal order framework explains Cana-
dian history as “in large measure the story of how the worldview of a few liberal men,
living in a few southern cities, attained power over half a continent” (2005, 57-58). In
McKay’s view, Canadian history involves the imposition of a “deeply rooted and perva-
sive” liberalism imposed upon groups, enveloping and ultimately subordinating other
ideas and ways of life while fragmenting communities (53-54).
Can this liberal order framework and simultaneous reduction of public space be
observed on the Parliamentary Precinct, and if so, how pervasive is it? On the Hill,
protesters must clear their numbers and schedules with authorities, and confront limi-
tations ranging from the size of their signs to noise level restrictions; hunger strikes
require a permit and are only allowed on the grounds between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00
p.m. (CUPH 2012, 4). Scholars such as criminologist Luis A. Fernandez would likely
argue that this permit process, however peaceable, none the less promotes protesters’
“passive coercion” (2008, 14). Indeed, when the government implemented the permit
process in 1985, its opponents, particularly Peace Camp activists challenging cruise
missile tests, argued that these changes violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms (Evenson 1985, C19).
Nevertheless, it is worth emphasizing that despite limitations imposed on Hill
activism, in practice when protests have overreached established conventions and bar-
riers, punitive measures have been muted as other institutional actors such as the
courts have stepped in. For example, in September 2011, roughly 100 people pro-
testing the federal government’s climate change policies were each fined $65 and
banned from the Hill for one year after climbing over a temporary fence to sit on
Hill lawns. Even this minimal punishment was dismissed by an Ontario court for the
13 protesters who contested the penalty (Postmedia News 2012, A9). It is also worth
179Anne Dance
considering that the Hill’s clear protest rules compare favourably to their equivalents
in places like London, where byzantine guidelines for police have led to haphazard
and aggressive crackdowns on protesters without any real attempt at negotiation or
understanding—including one farcical occasion when picnickers eating a cake iced
with the word “Peace” were threatened with arrest (Parkinson 2012, 158, 167). As well,
despite existing restrictions, Hill protesters regularly manage to promote their causes
with provocative images, actions, and slogans. For example, members of feminist
group FEMEN received extensive news coverage after protesting topless on the Hill to
demand the federal government support a Canadian woman trapped in Saudi Arabia
(Hill 2013, A3). As Parkinson writes, “scripted, purposive, democratic claim-making”
encounters around legislatures can be valuable, even if they are mediated by specific
rules, because they facilitate engagement and communication between politicians and
citizens (2012, 165).
Activists’ political interventions are not always appreciated by parliamentarians,
who tend to apply highly subjective criteria when judging a protest’s value. In Canada,
pundits and politicians continue to distinguish between “good” and “bad” protests.2
The former align with specific agendas and therefore qualify for free and ready access
to public places like the Hill, while the latter, espousing different causes, are critiqued
for disturbing daily activities (Weinreb 2009). This distinction is problematic not only
because it is highly subjective, but because “a primary aspect of a powerful protest is
its ability to disrupt. If you remove this power, then the protest is less effective and per-
haps less successful” (Fernandez 2008, 85). Resentment against such protests is not
unique to Canada: around the world, disruptive activism is decreasingly tolerated by
states suppressing public dissent (Fernandez 2008, 5; King and Waddington 2006).
On the Hill, Vickers has resisted such methods, arguing that violent crackdowns
only beget more violence:
Rather than have ... a whole spectacle of confrontation, we try to facilitate and
find balance for protesters while at the same time not disturbing the functions
of Parliament.... The whole mentality of rule of law [policing] is to get [the pro-
test] over with … and then it just becomes degrees of losing; it just becomes
worse and worse. When you’re dealing with these types of incidents there are
many tools in the toolbox. The tool of last resort really is that enforcement tool.
And when you bring that … tool out, no one’s going to win, people are going to
get hurt, it’s going to look bad, and … it just doesn’t resolve the issues. (2009)
Prior to his appointment as sergeant-at-arms, Vickers policed dozens of protests dur-
ing his long career as an RCMP officer and was lauded for outstanding service during
180Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes
the Burnt Church Crisis, a tense dispute over Mi’kmaq fishing rights that began in
1999 (Nicholson 2006). For Vickers, Hill protests are slightly different: “My instinct
tells me that when everyone comes here, they are so in awe of the space that … [pro-
tests lack] the same ferocity” as those sited elsewhere. Vickers acknowledges that Hill
protests are inevitable: “When people’s economic welfare is put in jeopardy,” he says,
“you’re going to get protests, and you’re going to get demonstrations” (2009). Protests
might be managed and challenged by police, but they are still regarded as important
to democracy. In other words, they are valued as an essential component of the Hill as
a public space.
Parliamentary Privilege
As if balancing security and activism on the Hill were not complicated enough, Hill
administrators must simultaneously consider parliamentary privilege. Parliamentary
privilege (or simply privilege), a type of parliamentary immunity particular to Westmin-
ster democracies, also governs movement and access on the Hill. Appearing before a
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs meeting on 3 May 2012, Audrey
O’Brien explained that privilege “is absolutely central. It’s the beating heart of parlia-
mentary democracy. That’s not something you toy with” (PROC 2012, 1224). Originally
developed to protect British parliamentarians from the interference and aggression of
powerful monarchs, privilege shields them from assault, insult, or threats within the
House; it also includes protection from arrest in civil actions.3 In practice, this means
that the House of Commons regulates its internal affairs and has unique disciplinary
powers. Matters of privilege are brought before the House, and the Speaker must rule
on them based on standing orders and practice. Recent prominent issues involving
privilege include insults within the House of Commons and parliamentarians’ access
to sensitive government information (O’Malley 2012a; McLeod 2012, A1).
Like Blomley’s pedestrianism (2011, 11), privilege creates a “distinct logic” for orga-
nizing space. Parliamentarians’ unimpeded admittance to the Hill is a central compo-
nent of privilege, although it is often overlooked since it is readily achieved under
ordinary circumstances. That said, parliamentarians have been personally endangered
on the Hill and in their ridings.4 To ensure that this aspect of privilege is respected
and guarantee that even without identification MPs and senators can bypass security
checks, security staff are provided with small handbooks containing parliamentarians’
pictures and names to help identify them. Security also accommodates the hundreds
of employees working in various capacities around the Parliamentary Precinct, and
some aspects of privilege are formally extended to parliamentarians’ family and assis-
tants (PROC 2012, 1122).
181Anne Dance
Upholding privilege is only possible through careful compromise and negotia-
tion. During his meetings with Hill protesters, Vickers is careful to explain privilege
and how it might affect their activities (2009). He did this in 2005 when 16 buses of
striking correctional services workers travelled from Montreal to Ottawa to bring their
grievances before the Treasury Board president, whose office was located in the Con-
federation Building, next door to the Justice Building. Both buildings are also home to
the offices of many other parliamentarians. Vickers recalls that “all of a sudden we had
four or five hundred correctional services employees, many of whom had consumed
alcohol, circling Confederation Building and the Justice Building banging pots and
pans” (2009). Question Period was imminent, and security forces were concerned that
MPs with offices in those buildings would be unable to reach Centre Block. Vickers
and Hill security staff asked the protesters about their goals. As Vickers recalls, they
answered promptly: “We have a speech, we want to read it on that doorstep, and we
want to have the media around us.” Vickers assented, so long as the space in front of
the Confederation Building was cleared in time for MPs to reach the House that after-
noon: “So the protester gets up, the leader gives a speech, they live up to their word,
and by 1:15 they’re gone.” The protesters were able to use Hill space to demonstrate,
and MPs made it to Question Period on time.
Parliamentarians’ understanding of privilege has sometimes conflicted with Hill
security measures. Nova Scotia Conservative MP Greg Kerr noted on 3 May 2012 that
Hill security is often problematic: “We get frustrated over the levels and numbers [sic]
of security activity, and I’m sure it must be a frustration for those who work in it”
(PROC 2012, 1157). Potentially disruptive visits from foreign dignitaries are planned
carefully, and staffers and parliamentarians are notified by their Speaker’s Office in
advance; yet tensions abound over whether Canadian Hill security personnel have been
subordinated by their international counterparts during these state visits. Debates by
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on the relative importance
of security versus parliamentary privilege in May 2012 were spurred by one particular
incident that involved security officials contesting Nova Scotia NDP MP Peter Stoffer’s
Hill access during the president of Israel’s visit. MPs on the committee recalled other
occasions when they had been blocked from entering particular Hill entrances and
exits, even after providing an identification badge. Security should not be able to stop
or delay MPs, British Columbia NDP MP Nathan Cullen reasoned, because this could
prevent them from reaching crucial votes. Cullen warned against MPs acquiescing to
“more and more special circumstances where [we] are no longer able to just access a
place that [we] need to access as an elected person in this county” (PROC 2012, 1204).
Taking a very different tack, Ontario Conservative MP Harold Albrecht noted that he
was willing to forego aspects of parliamentary privilege in favour of a more secure
182Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes
precinct (1125). During these committee debates, Vickers sought to reassure MPs: “I
can’t stress enough ... the number of meetings we have with the RCMP prior to these
events,” he told them. He assured the committee that privilege remained a priority:
“We stress over and over again the importance of parliamentary privilege … and the
importance of making sure members are not interfered with” (1148). Vickers’s empha-
sis on privilege contrasts with the approach of some of his international counterparts.
In the UK, for example, House of Commons Serjeant at Arms Jill Pay controversially
assented to the Metropolitan Police’s search of a Conservative MP’s precinct office
without a warrant in 2008 (Costar 2011, 99-105).5
In Canada, politicians push back when they feel security staff have overstepped
their responsibilities—and privilege. In the summer of 2013, one senator took excep-
tion to a Senate security directive regarding protesters on the Hill for the Million First
People’s March, a rally to promote Aboriginal issues. “Avoid any interaction with the
demonstrators,” an email from the Senate’s acting security director instructed all sena-
tors and Senate staff, in between providing details about the protest and Hill security
barricades (O’Malley 2013a). Liberal senator Lillian Dyck, who had been planning to
address the rally, objected to these instructions. Replying to the acting security direc-
tor’s message and all of its intended recipients, Dyck emphasized the legitimacy of the
march and suggested that senators and their staff might be interested in participating
in the rally. Dyck further rejected the Senate security staff’s authority to “dictate to par-
liamentarians and their staff with whom they may or may not interact.” Although the
senator did not explicitly invoke parliamentary privilege, the essence of her complaint
was that security staff were interfering with representatives’ ready, unfettered move-
ment around the Parliamentary Precinct. Through debates about privilege, contempo-
rary politicians are active players in the negotiation of public space on the Hill.
Public Access
Inside the Parliament Buildings, expectations are a little different. Members of the
public can enter Centre Block with tickets for free public tours or Question Period;
the Parliament of Canada website warns that visitors should “expect delays” during
obligatory security screening (Library of Parliament 2014b). People hoping to access
Parliament for other reasons must provide photo identification before passing through
security stations. Parkinson notes that, unlike their counterparts in countries like Aus-
tralia, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand, Canadians frequently “traipse to the
capital” and arrange visits to their representatives’ Hill offices (2012, 141). Parliamen-
tarians have a range of additional options for hosting visiting constituents, including
access to reception halls, meals in the various cafeterias, and private visits to the House
183Anne Dance
of Commons and Senate. Lobbyists from industry and non-governmental organiza-
tions have regular, privileged access to parliamentarians’ offices and committees,
although this lobbying is frequently scrutinized (McGregor 2012).
The Parliamentary Precinct’s grounds were not initially intended to act as a pub-
lic gathering place: none of the site’s original 1859 design submissions include any
prominent mention of public space for visitors (Young 1995, 127-42). Still, ordinary
Canadians’ access to the Hill is not a twentieth-century phenomenon. In September
1860, Centre Block’s cornerstone “was laid with great ceremony” by the future King
Edward VII as “bullocks and sheep were roasted whole upon the government ground
and all comers were feasted” (Bureau 1867, 13). Since then, the Parliamentary Pre-
cinct has been transformed by renovation and fire, and eroded by salt, pollution, and
extreme weather (Lawrence 2001, 15). It is now substantially more regulated than in
1860: sheep and public barbecues are banned, and mid-nineteenth-century Canadians
might have been bemused to learn that wedding receptions, balloons, tractors, boats,
and trains are now equally unwelcome on Hill grounds (CUPH 2012, 3-5).
A number of formal and informal public activities do take place on the Hill, how-
ever, including guided tours, Mosaika (a free summer light-and-sound show), caril-
lon concerts, MP soccer tournaments, Frisbee games, picnics, Lululemon-sponsored
yoga, and of course the annual Canada Day celebrations discussed by Matthew Hayday
(Library of Parliament 2014c, 2014d; Lululemon 2013). Until its recent closure, tour-
ists and locals also visited an abandoned cat sanctuary supported by local volunteers
(K. Smith 2013). The variety of these uses suggests that Hill administrators exercise
a fair degree of flexibility when interpreting precinct regulations.6 For instance, the
rules state that “organized sports are not permitted,” yet parliamentarians and their
staffers take part in amateur sports tournaments in front of Centre Block, and Frisbee
or corporate-sponsored yoga is a common sight (CUPH 2012, 3).
Parliament also acts as a virtual public space. A “Hill Cam” now provides an
image of Hill grounds, while Google Maps shows some of the most important rooms
and corridors in Centre Block (Public Works and Government Services 2014; Google
2013). The Internet has increased public access through live streamed committee hear-
ings that supplement existing television coverage available via the Cable Public Affairs
Channel (CPAC). A comprehensive resource of parliamentary legislation (LEGISinfo)
and an upgraded Hansard website make parliamentary data available online, although
some critics chide the slow pace of this modernization (Burk, Graham, and McCand-
less 1994; Niemczak and Hobbins 2004; Levitz 2012). Online coverage of parlia-
mentary activities from journalists with Hill press passes, especially Kady O’Malley’s
comprehensive committee liveblogs, has also opened an up-to-the-minute window to
the complexities of parliamentary procedure and policy debates (O’Malley 2012b). A
184Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes
growing number of parliamentarians use the Internet to engage with constituents,
most notably through Twitter (employed enthusiastically by senior Tory cabinet minis-
ter Tony Clement) and online competitions like the NDP’s “Create your Canada” youth
legislative challenge (O’Malley 2011; Crowder 2012). In addition, cultural productions
such as the CBC radio play Backbencher and Terry Fallis’s bestselling novel The Best
Laid Plans have introduced Canadians to life on the Hill through the eyes of fictional
MPs (Lill 2010; Fallis 2008).
These openings offer Canadians a fresh window on Parliament, even as parlia-
mentarians question existing public access. In addition to pointing out security con-
cerns, parliamentarians frequently seek to limit access to the Hill in favour of partisan
or political uses. Canadian politicians have allegedly asked security staff to act as
“media wranglers,” by limiting or blocking journalists’ access to Parliamentary Pre-
cinct resources (O’Malley 2013b). Hill space is also exploited for partisan purposes: the
failure of prominent MPs, including Tom Mulcair and Eve Adams, to stop at precinct
stop signs has become fodder for Question Period, while a rally against a Liberal oppo-
sition leader was secretly organized by the PMO (Berthiaume 2013; CBC News 2013b;
Raj 2013).
In some cases, Kevin Vickers has intervened to protect public access in his capac-
ity as sergeant-at-arms. Several years ago, Vickers faced off with high-ranking partisan
staff seeking to use Centre Block’s Hall of Honour for a political press conference,
despite the fact that plans had already been made for schoolchildren from Saskatch-
ewan to tour the space at that time. Balancing both requests was a challenge, but Vick-
ers gave priority to the school visit. Behind Vickers’s decision was the rationale that
Parliament should be accessible to all Canadian citizens:
The other thing people don’t realize … is that this building is not a government
building. It is not government. This is legislative, this is Parliament. And it’s a
pretty hard message to give to … certain people … [that] the kids from Moose
Jaw ... who saved their pennies all year must have the tour that they deserve.
That’s one of the challenges you face. (2009)
The importance of public access underpins how Vickers approaches his work. When
assessing changes to Hill security, he asks himself, “Number one, is it going to make
[the Hill] any safer? Number two, what does it do to intimidate or not intimidate people
to come here?” Vickers evokes a notion of political space, the commons: “I think it’s
fundamental to our democracy that citizens have access to their place, their building.
This is a House of Commons, and it’s for the commoners” (2009).
185Anne Dance
Vickers is conscious of the impact of his decisions, and the weight they have on
Canadians’ relationship to the Hill. He reasons that as
we go forward, we should ask ourselves what Canada should be when it grows
up.... Challenges … lay before us as we continue on this journey of sewing
together the fabric of our nation with the thread of multiculturalism. Perhaps it
would be beneficial for our country, as a nation, to define its core values. What
... makes up the soul and heart of our nation? (Taber 2011, A4)
For Vickers, these values include acceptance rather than tolerance. His convictions
have led him to intervene when he feels such values require protection. For example,
in early 2013, 3,000 protesters rallied on the Hill in support of Idle No More, a move-
ment to empower First Nations and overhaul their relationship with the Canadian
government. Protesters hoped to bring sacred tobacco and sweetgrass into the House,
but security protocols limited their access. Nevertheless, Vickers stepped forward to
take part in a formal exchange of tobacco with Chief Isadore Day of the Serpent River
First Nation. During the impromptu ceremony, Vickers referred to his 15 years work-
ing with First Nations communities and expressed sympathy for the protesters’ aims.
Although his security regulations would not allow their entrance into the Chamber,
Vickers and First Nations leaders fashioned a compromise that recognized the com-
plexity of Aboriginal–settler relations in Canada (Rabey 2013). Likewise, Vickers has
intervened to promote religious diversity on the Hill. In 2011, the Quebec National
Assembly banned the kirpan, a Sikh ceremonial dagger, and the Bloc Québécois
argued that Ottawa should do the same. Vickers instead moved to ensure kirpans were
allowed on the site: “As head of security, I am going to accept and embrace your sym-
bol of faith within the Parliamentary Precinct,” Vickers explained to a group of Sikh
Canadians following his decision (Taber 2011, A4).
That said, negotiation and Vickers’s direct interventions can only go so far when
confronted with Parliament Hill’s deteriorating physical infrastructure. Multi-billion-
dollar renovations threaten to reconfigure debates permanently about who can access
the Hill. In a series of rolling five-year plans that began in 2002, different sections of
the Parliamentary Precinct are set for repair and reconstruction. In 2017, the House of
Commons will temporarily relocate to West Block to accommodate this work. Future
plans do attempt to integrate contemporary expectations of public space, emphasizing
that “the openness, accessibility and security of the public spaces are representative of
the values treasured and celebrated by all Canadians” (Canada 2007, 5). Change, the
document continues, “needs to occur in a way that balances the evolving functional
needs of parliamentarians and other users with the overriding commitment to pre-
serve the historic, environmental and symbolic primacy of the site” (5). MP Proulx’s
186Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes
predictions of underground tunnels will soon be realized, however: the rehabilitated
Parliamentary Precinct will further limit existing pedestrian and vehicle access points
by erecting additional barriers, both fixed and retractable, at the remaining entrances.
One local critic of the plan compared the future site to a fortress or prison (Fletcher
2011). Parkinson argues that the Hill stands out compared to other restrictively bar-
ricaded assemblies, but future renovation plans may make its openness a thing of the
past (2012, 140).
Construction works are problematic not only because they could reduce public
access, but also because associated changes threaten to make Hill visitors passive
obstacles to be managed rather than active citizens expressing themselves in a public
space. As numerous scholars warn, online political participation can never effectively
take the place of increasingly scarce, underfunded, and threatened traditional public
spaces like legislatures and public squares (Parkinson 2012, 68, 204-5; Mitchell 2005;
Frey 2007; Blomley 2011, 19). Access to democratic institutions requires more than
bricks and mortar; as Charles Gordon suggests, people’s interactions on the Hill mat-
ter. Parkinson challenges national assemblies to find ways for individuals and groups
to engage with the places not only as tourists, learners, or consumers, but as demo-
cratic citizens (2012, 145); but Canadians have few avenues to participate actively in
decisions about the precinct. Ottawa NDP MP Paul Dewar believes planners should
prioritize making the Hill “a place where the citizens can still engage their members
of Parliament reasonably” (Vongdouangchanh 2006, 14). Instead, the MP argues, Hill
management remains opaque and inaccessible to the public. For example, House of
Commons Board of Internal Economy meetings have a major impact on Hill manage-
ment but remain closed to the public and go unrecorded. Responsibility for cultural
events on the Hill passed from the National Capital Commission (NCC) to Canadian
Heritage in 2013, which will further complicate decisions around site access and con-
tent (Butler 2013a). Without a transparent conversation about expectations for the pre-
cinct, it is hard to know how Parliament might maintain its uneasy balance between
a national symbol and a public space. Researching past management of the site is
also challenging: Sethna and Hewitt note that accessing archived materials relating
to policing, surveillance, and the RCMP is increasingly difficult due to restrictions
(2009, 465).
Discussions of Hill space in the media frequently include comments about the
inevitability of increased security and reduced public access (MacCharles 2013). These
assumptions are problematic because in the past, management of Hill grounds has
engendered a constantly negotiated form of public space. Such ambiguity has pro-
vided openings for future compromise and room for individuals like Kevin Vickers
to interpret their roles in ways that encouraged access and interaction. Assumptions
187You can also read
