Privilege / Freedom from Molestation

Freedom from molestation

Journals pp. 520-2

Debates pp. 3975-6

Background

On February 22, the Speaker accepted as a notice of a question of privilege a statement by Mr. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt) complaining of possible surveillance activities undertaken against him. The matter was raised again March 1 when Mr. Rodriguez argued that a bugging operation had taken place and that it was a breach of privilege since it called into question the privacy of communications between a Member and his constituents. The matter was reserved to March 3 when the issue was more fully discussed. For his part, the Speaker decided to take the matter under consideration but not before indicating that there were certain problems in the motion put forward by Mr. Rodriguez.

In his statement to the House (on the following day) the Speaker noted that electronic surveillance of Members is a new question as it relates to privilege. The motion, as framed, required that the Solicitor General's statements denying any involvement in the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. The Speaker found this contrary to practice and precedent. He noted as well that the issue of confidentiality of communication is far from established as a question of privilege. It was suggested, without deciding the merits of the question of privilege, that the motion be re-drafted. A new version of the motion was presented by Mr. Rodriguez, March 16.

Issue

Does electronic surveillance of a Member beyond the precincts of Parliament constitute a question of privilege?

Decision

The doubt as to whether electronic surveillance can constitute a question of privilege should be resolved by putting the question on the motion to the House. (The motion was defeated.)

Reasons given by the Speaker

While there are no previous precedents in any of the earlier practices of this House or of Westminster, and although this case involves an incident which took place beyond the precincts of Parliament, it seems that on the face of it, "electronic surveillance of a Member could be regarded as a form of harassment or obstruction or molestation or intimidation of a Member, all of which phrases have been used in our precedents to support the position that such conduct is a contempt of the House".

Authority cited

United Kingdom, Parliament, House of Commons, Report from the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege (London, 1967) p. 117.

References

Journals, March 21, 1978, pp. 525-6.

Debates, February 22, 1978, p. 3129; March 1, 1978, pp. 3348-9; March 2, 1978, pp. 3384-5; March 8, 1978, pp. 3571-6; March 9, 1978, pp. 3607-9; March 16, 1978, pp. 3831-2; March 21, 1978, pp. 3977, pp. 3988-9.