Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of Members

Freedom from obstruction and intimidation: threats against a Minister; prima facie

March 6, 2012

Debates, pp. 5834–5

On February 27, 2012, Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety) rose on a question of privilege concerning the cyber-campaigns that followed his introduction of Bill C-30, An Act to enact the Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act and to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts. Mr. Toews raised three issues and contended that each constituted a contempt of the House. The first was the use of House resources for a Twitter account to attack him personally, which he claimed degraded his reputation and obstructed him from carrying out his duties as a Member of Parliament. Second, he argued that the online threats made against him and his family through videos posted on YouTube by the group “Anonymous” constituted a deliberate attempt to intimidate him with respect to proceedings in Parliament. Last, he alleged that a campaign to inundate his office with calls, emails and faxes hindered him and his staff from serving constituents with legitimate needs in a timely fashion. Bob Rae (Toronto Centre) confirmed that an employee of the Liberal Research Bureau was responsible for the Twitter account the Minister referred to and that the employee had resigned. He apologized personally and on behalf of the Liberal Party for the conduct of the staff member. After hearing from other Members, the Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[1]

On February 28, 2012, Joe Comartin (Windsor-Tecumseh) rose to support the Minister’s position regarding the YouTube videos. However, he disagreed that the intent of Canadians flooding the Minister’s office with correspondence was to interfere with his parliamentary duties and claimed that it was an expression of their democratic right to oppose legislation. With regard to the Twitter account, the Member identified the issue of anonymity as the area of concern rather than the use of House resources, which, in his opinion, would not automatically constitute a breach of privilege. Other Members made interventions that day and on February 29, 2012. The Speaker again took the matter under advisement. ^[2]

Resolution

On March 6, 2012, the Speaker delivered his ruling. Regarding the Twitter account used for personal attacks, the Speaker stated that, in light of the unconditional apology made by Mr. Rae, as well as past practice, he considered this aspect of the question of privilege closed. In relation to inundation of the Minister’s office by correspondence, the Speaker ruled that although the Minister had a legitimate grievance, it did not constitute a prima facie case of privilege as he could not find that the Minister had been impeded in his ability to perform his parliamentary duties. Finally, with respect to the YouTube videos, the Speaker found them to be a subversive attack on the most fundamental privileges of the House, containing threats to both the Minister and other Members, and for that reason he believed there had been a prima facie breach of privilege of the House. Consequently, he invited the Minister to move the appropriate motion.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on February 27 by the Minister of Public Safety regarding cyber-campaigns following the introduction in the House by him of Bill C-30, An Act to enact the Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act and to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts.

I would like to thank the Minister for having raised these matters, as well as the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the House Leader of the Official Opposition, the Member for Toronto Centre, the Member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, the Member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, and the Member for Westmount—Ville-Marie for their interventions.

In raising his question of privilege, the Minister raised three issues, each of which he believed to be a contempt of the House.

The first concerned the use of House resources for the so-called Vikileaks30 account on Twitter, which he claimed was used to attack him personally, thereby degrading his reputation and obstructing him from carrying out his duties as a Member of Parliament.

The Interim Leader of the Liberal Party then rose to inform the House that he himself had intended to rise on a question of privilege, having been informed on February 26 that it was an employee of the Liberal Research Bureau who had been responsible for the Vikileaks30 site. The Interim Leader offered his unequivocal apology and that of the Liberal Party to the Minister.

In view of this unconditional apology made personally by the Member and on behalf of his party as a whole, and in keeping with what has been done in similar circumstances in the past, I am prepared to consider this particular aspect of the question of privilege closed.

I also wish to inform the House that the House of Commons’ policy on acceptable use of information technology resources was applied in this case, given that an unacceptable use of House IT resources occurred.

The Minister also raised the matter of an apparent campaign to inundate his office with calls, emails and faxes. This, he contended, hindered him and his staff from serving his constituents, and prevented constituents with legitimate needs from contacting their Member of Parliament in a timely fashion.

As the Member for Windsor—Tecumseh reminded the House, my predecessor, Speaker Milliken, was faced with a similar situation in 2005 in a matter raised by the former Member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

In his ruling on June 8, 2005, Speaker Milliken concluded that, while the Member had a legitimate grievance that the normal functioning of parliamentary offices had been affected, the Members involved and their constituents had still maintained the ability to communicate through several means. Thus, he could not find that it was a prima facie case of privilege, as the Members were not impeded in their ability to perform their parliamentary duties.

Having reviewed the facts in the current case, I must draw the same conclusion on the second aspect of the question of privilege.

This brings us to the third and what I consider to be the most troubling issue raised in the question of privilege, that of the videos posted on the website YouTube by the so-called Anonymous on February 18, 22 and 25. These videos contained various allegations about the Minister’s private life and made specific and disturbing threats.

The Minister has stated that he accepts that coping with vigorous debate and sometimes overheated rhetoric are part of the job of a politician but argued that these online attacks directed to both him and his family had crossed the line into threatening behaviour that was unacceptable. He contended that the threatened actions contained in these videos constituted a deliberate attempt to intimidate him with respect to proceedings in Parliament.

In House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, [page 111], it states:

It is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation and as such constitute prima facie cases of privilege. However, some matters found to be prima facie include the damaging of a Member’s reputation, the usurpation of the title of Member of Parliament, the intimidation of Members and their staff and of witnesses before committees, and the provision of misleading information.

In spite of the able arguments advanced by the Member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, the Chair is in no doubt that the House has full jurisdiction to decide the matter.

As is noted at page 108 of O’Brien and Bosc:

Speakers have consistently upheld the right of the House to the services of its Members free from intimidation, obstruction and interference. Speaker Lamoureux stated in a 1973 ruling that he had “no hesitation in reaffirming the principle that parliamentary privilege includes the right of a Member to discharge his responsibilities as a Member of the House free from threats or attempts at intimidation.”

Those who enter political life fully expect to be able to be held accountable for their actions to their constituents and to those who are concerned with the issues and initiatives they may advocate.

In a healthy democracy, vigorous debate on issues is encouraged. In fact, the rules and procedures of this House are drafted to allow for proponents and opponents to discuss, in a respectful manner, even the most difficult and sensitive of matters.

However, when duly elected Members are personally threatened for their work in Parliament, whether introducing a bill, making a statement or casting a vote, this House must take the matter very seriously.

As noted by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, threats or attempts to influence a Member’s actions are considered to be breaches of privilege.

I have carefully reviewed the online videos in which the language used does indeed constitute a direct threat to the Minister in particular, as well as other Members. These threats demonstrate a flagrant disregard of our traditions and a subversive attack on the most fundamental privileges of this House.

As your Speaker and the guardian of those privileges, I have concluded that this aspect, the videos posted on the Internet by Anonymous, therefore, constitutes a prima facie question of privilege and I invite the Minister to move his motion.

Postscript

Mr. Toews moved that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the motion was agreed to.^[3] On May 2, 2012, the Committee presented its Twenty-First Report to the House, which found that the YouTube videos in question posted by the group Anonymous violated the parliamentary privileges of Mr. Toews and all Members.^[4] The Report was not concurred in.