Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of the House

Abuse of Commons’ stationery, mailing and franking privileges: alleged misuse of Commons’ stationery by former Member and an American organization

May 17, 1990

Debates, pp. 11561-3

On Wednesday, April 18, 1990, an article appeared in The Toronto Star claiming that a letter on House of Commons letterhead and signed by a former Member of Parliament had been distributed to a number of American citizens by a Virginia-based association, English First. The letter allegedly advocated opposition to linguistic duality in support of an effort at a constitutional amendment to make English the official language of the United States.

On April 23, 1990, Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell) rose on a question of privilege to draw the House’s attention to the newspaper article and the letter which engendered it. The Speaker and other Members also made remarks on the matter.^[1] The Speaker referred to the contributions of all intervenors in his ruling of May 17, 1990, which is reproduced in its entirety below.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: On Monday, April 23, 1990, the honourable Member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell rose on a question of privilege to draw our attention to a letter circulating in the United States which had been the subject of at least one news article in this country.

The letter in question was written by a former honourable Member of this place and bore his signature. The text clearly indicates that the writer is no longer a Member of Parliament. The opening sentence, directed to an American audience, reads:

I bid you greetings from Canada where, for eight years, I served that nation as a Member of Parliament until 1984.

This is followed by the declaration: “I chose to give up my seat in Parliament as a protest”. Finally, the signature block refers to the writer as: “Member of Parliament (ret)”.

Beyond noting those indications in the text that bear on the fact that the former honourable member was not misrepresenting his current status, I do not think the Chair should comment at all upon the content of the letter.

When the issue was first raised in the House, the Chair said: “The question is whether or not it is appropriate to send (the letter) out-under the guise of House of Commons stationery”, and “The point I have to decide is whether whoever put this out has done something which breaches the privileges of the House”.

The writer of the letter who is, as I have said, a former honourable Member of this place, has, in a letter addressed to your Speaker, the House leader and several other honourable Members, categorically denied sending this letter out on House of Commons stationery. This denial is supported by the statement of the president of the group which claims responsibility for the mailing at issue. According to that statement, the group took the writer’s draft, which was on plain white paper, transferred it to a composite made up of two or three samples of parliamentary letterhead, and mailed it in a similar composite envelope.

In our discussions on April 23 last, it was, I think, made clear that our former colleague not only bore no responsibility for the misuse of House of Commons letterhead, but that he took considerable pains to explain his position in this matter to this House at the earliest opportunity. Furthermore, it was, I believe, conceded that this House was in no way misled as to the status of the former Member.

That being so, I must confine my considerations to the question, is this unsanctioned use of House of Commons letterhead by an American group a serious enough matter to warrant setting aside the regular business of this House?

In this connection, I would remind all honourable Members of the limited function ascribed to the Speaker in ruling on a claim of breach of privilege by citation 84(2) of Beauchesne’s Rules and Forms of the House of Commons, Fifth Edition. I want also to repeat what I have said so often in the past, that the Speaker does not rule on whether a breach of privilege or a contempt has in fact been committed. The Speaker only determines whether an application based on a claim of contempt or breach of privilege is, on first impression, of sufficient importance to set aside the regular business of the House and go forward for a decision of the House.

The honourable Member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, in his remarks, referred me to a decision of May 6, 1985, wherein a former Member of Parliament was identified as a Member in a newspaper advertisement. In that case, the Speaker stated in finding it was a prima facie case of privilege, “anything tending to cause confusion as to a Member’s identity, creates the possibility of an impediment to the fulfilment of that Member’s function”.^[2]

The Chair also indicated in that case that the only tangible evidence was that provided by the honourable Member who raised the question of privilege. That case is certainly not on all fours with this one, as in this case it was established that there was no confusion as to the identity of the former Member and, further, the former Member established by documentary evidence at the first opportunity that he was not responsible for the misuse of House of Commons stationery.

The honourable Member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell stated:

The point is that that material, in several thousands of copies, has been distributed to individuals, misleading them to believe that in some way the House, or a representative of the House, was associated with it. In that way…the privileges of the House collectively have been affected.

The honourable Minister of State, the Government House Leader (Hon. Harvie Andre), felt that it was obviously unacceptable for anyone to use House of Commons stationery in a fraudulent manner and assert a claim of official status for it. While he asserted that the person responsible for the mailing most certainly had abused the privileges of the House, he queried whether we could enforce those privileges beyond our borders.

The honourable Member for Kamloops (Mr. Nelson Riis), who had also filed notice of his intention to raise this matter, noted that the honourable “Government House Leader said that yes, indeed, he agrees the privileges of the House had been breached”.

The honourable Member for Kamloops referred to [the First Edition of] Maingot’s work Parliamentary Privilege in Canada which, at page 195 in the English edition, describes one class of contempt as being the interference with “the corporate rights of the House”.

“Surely”, the honourable Member for Kamloops continued, “the House of Commons shares the same corporate rights as other corporate bodies, including the important right to claim sole use of our Coat of Arms, stationery, and freedom from the misrepresentation of our views by others”.

I listened intently to the views of all honourable Members who spoke on this matter and I have reviewed the facts with a great deal of care. There would appear to be a unanimous sense of outrage directed at the perpetration of this affront. There also appears to be agreement, on all sides of the House, that the privileges of the House, in the broadest sense of that term, have been breached.

The Chair, however must still determine which of the specific privileges of the House have been breached. I must admit that the action complained of does not fit neatly under any of the headings under which the rights and immunities of individual members or the rights and powers of the House as a collectivity are categorized.

The difficulty in categorizing the purported breach of privilege led the Chair to consider whether perhaps the action at issue was not a breach at all but rather a contempt; broadly speaking, an offence against the authority or the dignity of the House of Commons.

The Chair has found that no breach of privilege exists but that it is at least arguable that there is a contempt at issue. The finding is of little practical significance however, because the next question which the Chair must address, in either case, is the same. That is, is this matter of sufficient importance to be afforded privileged treatment. In other words, should it be put to the House immediately?

Were I to respond to that question in the affirmative the honourable Member who raised the question of privilege would be invited to propose to the House a motion referring the matter to the Privileges and Elections Committee. The motion could then be debated, amended and voted upon. Depending on the outcome of that process, the matter might then be considered by a committee and reappear before the House if and when the committee reported.

It is with a full appreciation of the whole complex process entailed in according privileged treatment to any matter that the Chair must decide whether or not to find a matter is prima facie a question of privilege or contempt.

The case at hand involves a misuse of a facsimile of House of Commons stationery in a pathetic attempt, presumably, to lend some sort of official status to the perpetrator’s cause. Furthermore, the offence has occurred in the United States where neither the House nor its committees could exercise any authority. The Chair is most reluctant to accord to a case of this nature the importance that would undoubtedly attach to it were I to find a prima facie case of contempt and accordingly I refuse to do so.

In concluding my remarks on this matter, the Chair wishes to express its appreciation to the honourable Member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, the honourable Member for Kamloops and the government House Leader for the calibre of their contributions to this discussion. All three performed in the best traditions of the place in focusing on the procedural question involved and in avoiding argument on the content of the letter at issue.

The Chair is most conscious of the restraint exercised in this regard. There is a danger always that under the guise of defending our privilege we would provide a platform for those who espouse opinions repugnant to our own. That danger has been neatly averted in this instance and the Chair is grateful for the cooperation of all honourable members in this respect.

F0107-e

34-2

1990-05-17