Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of Members

Interference with Member’s office: office moved in Member’s absence and without his consent

April 11, 1991

Debates, p. 19340

On Monday, April 8, 1991, Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu) rose on a question of privilege concerning the relocation of his Parliament Hill office. On the previous day, Sunday, April 7, 1991, House of Commons’ staff had proceeded to transfer all contents and equipment from Mr. Plamondon’s office to another office. According to Mr. Plamondon, this occurred without either himself or his staff having been informed of the move. Mr. Plamondon argued that such a move, in his absence and without his consent, constituted a breach of his privileges and was also “contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” In presenting his case of privilege, Mr. Plamondon described the sequence of events which led to his complaint. He stated that when he was initially informed that his office would be moved, he had refused on the basis that it implied an unnecessary cost to the taxpayers. He had then requested the Speaker to intervene on his behalf since, as an Independent (Bloc Québécois) Member, he was not represented by a Whip. He indicated that at the time of the move he had not received a response from the Speaker.

At that point, the Speaker interrupted the question of privilege to comment that while Mr. Plamondon might have a complaint, it was an administrative matter not a question of privilege. He noted that there was more to the story than what had been said and that he was prepared to discuss the matter at another time. Mr. Plamondon attempted to pursue the matter on a point of order; however, the Speaker disallowed further comment.^[1]

On April 9, 1991, Mr. Plamondon rose, again on a question of privilege, to repeat his claim that his privileges had been breached. The Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean ) also spoke in support of the claim. The Speaker reiterated that the question raised by Mr. Plamondon was an administrative matter not one of privilege; however, he suggested that he could arrange a private meeting between himself, Mr. Plamondon and officials involved in the move in order to resolve the matter and added that Mr. Plamondon could “hold his place open on this question of privilege.”^[2]

On April 11, 1991, the Speaker made a brief statement to the House, which is reproduced in extenso below.

RESOLUTION

The Speaker: I would like to make a brief clarification further to the statement by the honourable Member for Richelieu in the House yesterday and his question of privilege raised on Monday this week.

I first wish to inform the House of the successful meeting I had today with the honourable Member and with some officials who participated in moving his office. At that meeting, the honourable Member said he was completely convinced that at no time were his rights and privileges as a Member violated. It was recognized that such situations are exceptional and unique, and it was regrettable if it caused him some concern.

Once again, I wish to thank the honourable Member for his confidence and cooperation in this affair.

The Speaker then recognized Mr. Plamondon who expressed his thanks to the Speaker for meeting with him promptly and for publicly recognizing the unfortunate situation in which the Member had found himself. He confirmed that he had received assurances from legal counsel who had monitored the move that the security and confidentiality of his files were respected. While reiterating his objection to the original move as an unnecessary expenditure, he indicated that to spare further expense he had decided to stay in the new office assigned to him.

F0125-e

34-2

1991-04-11