Charles' Legislature Ban - Democratic Deficit and Credibility Chasm

Charles Banned – Or is he?

Mysteries continue to shroud the ban of Charles Leblanc from the Legislature of New Brunswick in 2006.  

On June 19, 2006, shortly after his arrest at the Atlantica Conference, Charles received papers indicating that he was banned from the legislature indefinitely.  Various reasons were given, none of them specific.  The CBC news report of June 20, 2006 states:

A New Brunswick blogger and political activist has been permanently barred from entering any buildings or stepping on any property within the provincial legislature district in Fredericton.

Charles LeBlanc, a prolific blogger who writes about poverty and the province's political and corporate power brokers on his website, was issued the barring notice on June 19. 

The notice, posted on LeBlanc's blog, accuses him of demonstrating "unacceptable behaviour within the legislative precincts, which has included harassment and disrespectful behaviour toward legislative staff, members of the Security Detail and members of the public."

The notice includes a map of the district, with lines drawn around the streets where LeBlanc is prohibited from walking.

If LeBlanc refuses to stay away, the notice says he will be charged with assault under the Criminal Code of Canada. The notice is signed by the legislature's Sergeant-at-Arms Dan Bussières.

Bussières says fewer than half a dozen other individuals have also been barred from the legislature grounds.

David Peterson served as clerk of the New Brunswick legislature between 1978 and 1993, and says nobody was ever banned during his time on the job. He said MLAs resisted his attempts to tighten security at the house because they didn't want to limit access from the public.

"We had people practically push the doors off the hinges and they've never done anything like that," Peterson said.

The notice does not give LeBlanc any right of appeal, or offer any venue to argue whether the ban is appropriate.

Peterson, now a lawyer in private practice, said the threat of an assault charge is strange.  "I would love to be the defence lawyer for somebody who is just passively sitting on the front steps of the legislature [and is charged with assault]. It seems a fair stretch."

The legislature's administration committee approved the ban, including Liberal house leader Kelly Lamrock, who says his office must protect its staff from harassment.

"There are cases where security decisions are made for the well-being of members or the staff people," Lamrock said. "And there is an employer's responsibility to protect employees. Those have to be balanced with the very, very, very high duty to keep parliament open and accessible to everyone."

But Liberal MLA Abel LeBlanc says banning the blogger just doesn't make sense. "I disagree with Charlie being barred from the legislature. I disagree. Everybody has the right to come to the legislature. Their favourite saying, the Tories, is that 'It's the people's house.' Well, he's a person and he should have the right."

LeBlanc has gained notoriety in recent weeks for attempting to join New Brunswick's legislature press gallery and getting arrested at a trade conference in Saint John.

The barring notice comes just days after the arrest, which happened as LeBlanc began photographing a group of protesters as they stormed into a meeting of business leaders in Saint John.

LeBlanc spent four hours in jail, and says police deleted all the photos from his digital camera. He is due in court next month to face a charge of obstructing justice.

Shannon Hagerman reported in the Telegraph-Journal of June 21, 2006 as follows:

...

Mr. LeBlanc said he’s disappointed at the order and he’s not sure what he’ll do next.

“I am the man on the street and I confront politicians on a number of issues. Maybe, some of the politicians-we don’t know who they are- said ‘Enough is enough. We have to get rid of him.’”

Mr. LeBlanc, a critic of the Conservative government, spends hours every day at the legislature snapping photos of the media, politicians, civil servants and even corporate business executives who drop by the legislature to visit.

...

The Legislative Administrative Committee, made up of Conservative and Liberal MLAs, made the decision to ban Mr. LeBlanc from the property two weeks ago.

The group held the meeting in private.

             ...

Speaker Michael (Tanker) Malley, who chairs the committee, declined interviews about the subject Tuesday but read a brief statement.

“The individual concerned was warned a number of times and given ample opportunities to refrain from harassing personnel and guests, this and to no avail,” Mr. Malley said. “As an employer, the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick is committed to providing a work environment in which all individuals are treated with respect and dignity.”

The order is final and it doesn’t appear Mr. LeBlanc has any rights to appeal.

...

“I learned last year I was labelled as a security risk and I don’t really know the reason besides he told me I was harassing people, harassing the public when they were going in and I asked him who I was harassing but he never said,” he said.

He denies he has harassed anyone, but admits he does take pictures and talk to provincial MLAs about various issues.

...

Liberal house leader Kelly Lamrock, who is a member of the committee that banned Mr. LeBlanc, said he supported the proposal when it came forward.

The proposal had been brought to the committee before, but MLAs rejected barring Mr. LeBlanc, Mr. Lamrock said.

In his most recent case, the committee felt it had no choice, he said.

But not all provincial MLAs agree with the order. Two members of the Liberal caucus, Southwest Miramichi MLA Rick Brewer and Saint John Lancaster MLA Abel LeBlanc said they feel the order is an extreme reaction.

“Specifically barring someone from the legislature is totally, totally wrong as far as I am concerned. I am here. I got elected by the people and you know he’s a person. If he comes here and asks me for anything, I do it for him,” said Abel LeBlanc.

He credits the anti-poverty activist for bringing issues to his attention, like individuals being denied social assistance or having a hard time finding housing.

“Charlie LeBlanc has been an outstanding guy as far as I am concerned. He’s the voice of a lot of people that are listening to him.”

Charles wrote his account of how the banning came about in a blog entry of June 20, 2006.  He claims he knew the rules legislature and followed them.  It is clear that he had a difficult relationship with House Sergeant- at-Arms Dan Bussières for the three years leading up to that point.  Charles states he never received a signed copy of the “Barring Notice”, leading to a question if the ban was ever formally passed.  A copy of the document that was presented to him by Dan Bussières on June 20, 2006 states:

You have demonstrated unacceptable behaviour within the legislative precincts which has included harassment and disrespectful behaviour toward legislative staff, members of the Security Details, and members of the public.

I hereby give you notice that you are no longer allowed on the sidewalks, paths, flowerbeds, lawns of the Legislative Assembly Building, the Departmental Building and the Old Education Building of Parliament Square located between King and Queen Streets, St. John Street and Secretary Lane as well as Edgecombe House, 736 King Street, Jewett House, 96 Secretary Lane in the City of Fredericton.

This barring notice shall stay in effect for an indefinite period.

The Legislative Assembly goes to great lengths to ensure the right of members of the public to be heard and to peacefully protest and to articulate points of view.  However, the Legislative Assembly has a responsibility to provide a safe and secure environment for members, staff and visitors to the legislative precincts without disruption or interference.  If you choose to disregard the directives and authority of House officials, I will have no alternative but to but to seek your removal by the police authorities from Parliament Square grounds.  Your refusal to comply forthwith may be deemed to be an assault, contrary to and in violation of Subsection 41 (2) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Prelude to the Ban

In the three years leading up to the ban, Charles spent a lot of time at the legislature.  In September, 2005, he was offered a job by a contractor repairing a ceiling at the legislature.  No sooner had Charles begun the job when he was let go because Dan Bussières labelled him a security risk.  It was the first time Charles had learned that he was a security risk.  He filed a complaint with the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission.

The Human Rights complaint was dismissed in August, 2006 on the ground that the commission had no jurisdiction over the action of the legislature due to parliamentary privilege.  Materials filed with the Commission in responding to the complaint provide details of the alleged security risk posed by Charles.  Loredana Catalli Sonier, Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, swore the following in an affidavit:

26.          On March 22, 2005, due to ongoing security risks posed by the complainant herein, Charles LeBlanc, the Legislative Administration Committee reviewed the matter of visitor access given to Mr. LeBlanc to the Legislative Assembly Building.  The Committee directed the Sergeant-at-Arms and me to continue to closely monitor Mr. LeBlanc and to report back to the Committee, if necessary.

27.          The complainant, Charles LeBlanc, has protested on the grounds of the Legislative Assembly since the summer of 2003 when he set up a tent in front of the Legislature Building.  On December 4, 2003, he was served notice by the Sergeant-at-Arms to voluntarily remove his tend for health and security reasons, but refused to comply.

28.          On December 12, 2003, an opposition Member of the Legislative Assembly tabled in the Legislature a petition signed by concerned citizens who maintained that Ritalin was over-prescribed in New Brunswick.  The petition was organized by Mr. LeBlanc and at that point he had occupied the grounds of the legislature for 180 days to bring attention to the concerns of children suffering from attention deficit disorders.  He vacated the grounds after the petition was tabled in the House, but since that time Mr. LeBlanc has maintained a constant presence at the Legislative Assembly.

29.          Mr. LeBlanc frequently loiters within the lobby of the main Assembly building and can be found on or near the grounds of the Assembly on an almost daily basis.

30.          Mr. Bussières has advised me, and I believe, that Mr. LeBlanc has demonstrated much disrespect for the security staff at the Legislative Assembly.  He has posted on his website the names and pictures of the security staff [See Exhibit “D” attached].  Mr. LeBlanc has posted pictures on his website of security measures being implemented at the Legislature [Exhibit “E” attached <also see here>].  This has included taking pictures of security cameras and drawing attention to their placement in and around the Legislative buildings [Exhibit “F” attached].

31.          Mr. LeBlanc has shown disregard for numerous policies in place at the Legislature.  For instance, although it is prohibited, he has taken at least one picture in the Gallery and posted it on his website [Exhibit “G” attached].  Although it is prohibited, he has taken pictures in the Legislative Chambers and posted them on his website [Exhibit “H” attached <also see here>].  He has posted photographs of Members of the Legislative Assembly and their personal vehicles while parked at the Legislature, including their licence plate numbers [Exhibit “I” attached<also see here><also see here>].

32.          Mr. Bussières has advised me, and I believe, that on numerous occasions, Mr. LeBlanc has been unnecessarily loud and rude, disrupting staff and interrupting guests during their visits to the Assembly.  He has frequently been critical of Legislature staff and has at times interfered in their day to day duties, interrupting them and interjecting himself into private conversations.

33.          Mr. Bussières has advised me, and I believe, that Mr. LeBlanc approaches Members of the Legislative Assembly as they go about their daily work, confronting them as they enter or leave the main building or their adjacent offices.  He has often loitered within the building itself while the House is in session and approaches Members, staff and other individuals.

34.          On March 12, 2005, an article entitled “The Question is not if the Legislature will be attack (sic) but when???” appeared on Mr. LeBlanc’s website.  A copy of the article is attached hereto as Exhibit “J”.  Mr. Bussières brought the article to my attention on March 14, 2005, and at that time told me that in his opinion while Mr. LeBlanc posed no threat, he does pose a security risk when he broadcasts Legislature operational details and comments on security related issues to an unknown audience on his website.  On March 14, 2005, I agreed with Mr. Bussières assessment of Mr. LeBlanc as a security risk insofar as the Legislative Precinct is concerned and such concern by Mr. Bussières and me continues to this day [Mr. Bussières has confirmed this to me].

In the Legislative Assembly’s response to Charles’ Human Rights complaint, Fredericton Lawyer Donald J. Stevenson argued successfully that the Legislature has an inherent right to control its processes free from review by other adjudicative bodies.  Because of this parliamentary privilege, the Human Rights Commission could not rule on the complaint itself.

Mr. Stevenson quoted case law at length to establish important principles behind the privilege:

Given that legislatures are representative and deliberative institutions, those privileges ultimately serve to protect the democratic nature of those bodies.  (Ref re Remuneration of Judges of the Prov. Court of P.E.I. [1997] 3 SCR 3 at para.101)

The legislative body needs this legal protection or immunity to perform its function and to defend and vindicate its authority and dignity.  The Members of the legislative body enjoy these rights and immunities because the legislature cannot act or perform without the unimpeded use of the services of its Members.  (Maingot, Joseph.  Parliamentary Privilege in Canada.  2d ed. (House of Commons and McGill-Queens University Press, 1997) at 12)

Some examples of the privilege include “the general freedom from obstruction in carrying out parliamentary functions, including freedom of access to the Legislative Precinct”, the right to exclude strangers, and the right to regulate its own internal affairs and procedures free from interference.  (Maingot, at 14-15, New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly), [1993] 1 SCR 319)

No Court or other tribunal will interfere with a properly constituted decision of the Legislature to exclude a member of the public from its proceedings, but with unfettered privilege comes responsibility.  The Legislature is composed of its members, whose sanction is the requirement periodically to consult the electors of the province.  Proceedings that are carried out in secret, with no documented process, no specific grounds alleged that the excluded “stranger” poses a threat to the security or operation of the Legislature, no opportunity to reply and no appeal, are exempt from democratic oversight, undermining the foundation of the privilege itself.

The Ongoing Saga

Five years after the Legislature ban, the issue was publicly revived in the wake of incidents between Charles and the Fredericton police during the summer of 2011 which led to his arrest for protesting outside the Fredericton Police Station with a bull horn.  Loredana Catalli Sonier volunteered further information on the reasons for the ban.

Loredana Catalli Sonier statement Sept. 19, 2011:

CBC Terry Seguin: Charles Leblanc has portrayed himself as an activist and advocate of free speech.  Last Friday he pleaded not guilty to a charge of causing a disturbance for protesting with a bullhorn in front of the Fredericton Police Station.  Leblanc says a ticket he received for riding his bike on the sidewalk is the result of a five year feud with staff at the New Brunswick Legislature.  Leblanc was banned from the Legislature in 2006.  Late Friday afternoon, the Clerk of the Legislature took the unusual step of revealing new details of the reason for that ban.  Here’s what Loredana Catalli Sonier had to say.

Loredana Catalli Sonier:  We had a number of complaints leading up to the filing of written complaints to me regarding the actions of Charles Leblanc while he was in the building.  We had observed certain incidents and the Sergeant-at-Arms met with Charles Leblanc and gave him every opportunity to correct his behaviour.  He did not correct this behaviour and this culminated in the filing of written complaints.  In fact there was one from a member of the press gallery as well as security personnel and some from the Corp of Commissionaires.  LAC (Legislative Administration Committee), the committee that actually is the employer took these complaints very seriously and they followed the harassment policy where they’re obligated to ensure that the workplace is free of harassment.  I mean, employees need to go about their work and be treated with dignity and respect and this was not happening.  I mean there was harassment, I mean we observed and LAC took the matter very seriously and they proceeded and issued a barring notice on June 6, 2006.  There were six complaints.  The behaviour was he would hurl insults, personal insults, to the people in question.  If he left the building he would throw a badge at them, the security badge that you receive, he would stick the camera in their face, he had tape recorders on him, if he would go on a break he would chase them and approach them and stick the camera very close to their face and just basically say you’re a public figure and you have no right to privacy.  It was along those lines and it caused among some of the personnel, one member of the security detail actually resigned , stated that as the reason for resigning because he could no longer take that kind of abuse.  So LAC took that very seriously and since then there have been two requests to have him reinstated, one as early as this year, and what we basically have taken the position that he has not demonstrated that he’s changed his behaviour.  In fact he will not obey any orders from the Corp of Commissionaires or security.  He has been allowed on the grounds even though the barring notice excluded him from the grounds but in the last incident he was up on a top step at the front door and he was asked to leave and he just pushed aside a commissionaire and so he just refused to obey his order.  Someone demonstrates a lack of respect for authority it’s pretty hard for a committee to reinstate a right to come back into the building under those circumstances.  The Committee did not bar Mr. Leblanc from the Precincts because of anything he said on his blog.  It was purely the actions of the individual while in the legislative building.

Charles’ interview with provincial affairs reporter Jacques Poitras, September 23, 2011

CBC Terry Seguin: Charles Leblanc is not going quietly.  Earlier this week, we played some tape of the Clerk of the New Brunswick Legislature explaining why the blogger activist was banned from the building in 2006.  Loredana Catalli Sonier said the ban has nothing to do with what Leblanc writes on his blog.  She said it was because of complaints about Leblanc’s behaviour from six people who work in and around the legislature.  After we aired the Clerk’s comments, Leblanc asked for the right to respond.  He sat down with our provincial affairs reporter, Jacques Poitras.  

Charles Leblanc:  I’m not the same Charles Leblanc that I used to be.  I used to go there to read the newspapers in the library, to check my email in the computer.  I was always there, there’s no question about it.  Was I a pain in the butt?  Sure, I’m not going to deny it.  And then in 2005 I got a job myself.  A contractor hired me and I worked for four hours, I was going to have a job inside the legislature, in the room, ten bucks an hour, put down the ceiling.  Next thing you know the contractor told me that he had to let you go, because he said they don’t like you in there.  So, I had a chance to make a living for six months and Dan Bussières said I didn’t pass security clearance.  I mean, I was in a tent for six months, they knew who I was.  So that’s where the trouble really began when they stopped me from making a living.  Now, after that started, Dan Bussières, and I’ve been told by four different individuals, and I would talk to somebody inside the leg, Dan Bussières would arrive and say is that man harassing you?  Who Charles?  No.  Then he went around and said, if you put a harassment charge against Charles, Charles will never find out.  Sign these papers, we’ll present it to the LAC Committee and I promise that Charles will never know that you put a harassment charge.  Now, what is harassment?  You can say hello to a person and it could be harassment.  The Clerk said that I was taking pictures, that I had my camera in people’s faces.  That is an outright lie.  Number one, I couldn’t bring my camera inside the Leg, and I took some pictures outside.  But  I never had a video then.  I only started this video two years after the ban.  So, the camera thing?  I don’t think so.  This is foolishness.  This is overboard because it’s getting personal.  And by upset, do I make fun of Dan in my blog?  Yes I do.  Does Dan get upset at stuff that’s on my blog?  Yes he does.  The Clerk went to the CBC and told that Charles Leblanc, that I was such a rude disgusting person.  Well, maybe I still am, but that was six years ago.  Why didn’t they say anything six years ago?  

CBC Jacques Poitras:  What about she said you make personal insults to people’s faces, you would throw the security pass when you were leaving at the Commissionaires? 

Charles Leblanc:  There was a problem, everybody had a problem with a certain guy, and I had problems with him.  When I was working there for four hours he was making fun of me .  There was a personality conflict between me and this guy.  I left and I just throw my pass on the desk, and I didn’t hand it to him face to face.  He really really really gave me a hard time, and it was personal.  

CBC Jacques Poitras:  The clerk also said that you on the steps recently shoved or pushed a Commissionaire?

Charles Leblanc:  Well, that is a complete lie.  They have about 10 or 15 cameras outside of the Leg.  Let’s be honest, Jacques.  If i would push a Commissionaire do you think we would be having this conversation?  Dan Bussières, that episode, came out and accused me of pushing the Commissionaire.  I said, I never push nobody.  As a matter of fact, Dan Bussières pushed me and I got it on video, and the police are investigating this complaint that I made against Dan Bussières now.  I mean, this is getting totally totally out of hand.  This is hurting a lot of people.  All over foolishness.  I think it’s just a battle of Titans and nobody wants to get hit.

CBC Jacques Poitras:  Have you considered at all, since your experience in jail and in Court, whether to moderate your approach or change your style at all?

Charles Leblanc:  Well, you know Jacques, let’s face facts.  I don’t need to protest with a blow horn outside.  I have a very popular blog.  I have seven, eight thousand people a day.  High class people, powerful people, they read my blog.  There’s no question about it.  Should I change my approach?  I have ADHD Jacques, I’m hyper.  I can’t change that.  I mean, I wish my priest could perform an exorcism on me, or remove the Scottish blood out of my system, that’s another thing, because I’m so stubborn.  I’m half Scottish, my mother’s from Glasgow Scotland.  I’m not going to use that as an excuse but can I change my ways?  Well, maybe not with a blow horn, just stay in my blog and hopefully calmer heads will prevail and we can settle this and move on.

CBC Terry Seguin:  Mr. Leblanc also disputes the Clerk’s statement that the ban had nothing to do with the content of his blog.  He says one employee at the Legislature was upset by a vague and indirect reference he made on his blog to her personal circumstances without identifying her.  Leblanc says he’s been told that contributed to the ban something the Clerk has denied.  We’ve chosen not to air that part of Leblanc’s interview to avoid identifying that employee. 

Democratic Deficit and a Growing Credibility Gap

Ms Sonier’s puzzling, belated effort on September 19, 2011 to shore up the Legislative Assembly’s undemocratic action in banning Charles from its precincts illustrates the challenge facing governments everywhere.  Vague, generalized assertions as a means of justifying an action or a policy are no match for the graphic truth depicted by the everyman blogger and tweeter through his own private media empire.

“Control the message and you control the truth” (aka the big lie) is getting hard to carry off.  Ms Sonier’s assertions elicited an immediate response from Charles.  A case of “he said, she said”, but Charles came out as far more credible.

Ms Sonier added nothing new to the debate over Charles’ banning.  Charles did.  He refuted each assertion in detail.  His assertions are backed by the minute, graphic detail that is captured daily on his blog.

No matter who is pulling the strings in the ongoing persecution of Charles Leblanc, this is a battle between titans over who controls the message.