Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of the House

Abuse of Commons’ stationery, mailing and franking privileges: alleged misuse of Commons’ stationery and franking privileges for partisan political purposes

October 16, 1986

Debates, pp. 405-6

On October 16, 1986, Bob Brisco (Kootenay West) rose on a question of privilege regarding the alleged misuse of House of Commons stationery and franking privileges by eight New Democratic members of Parliament representing British Columbia. He contended that these members had delivered “a blatantly political message by way of a mass mailing on the B.C. election campaign solely for political gain.” Quoting part of the letter, Mr. Brisco claimed it to be an abuse of his privileges “in terms of the proper application and use of stationery and the frank.” He was supported in this position by Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo—Alberni) who suggested the matter be referred to an appropriate committee. Other members also intervened on the matter.^[1] The Speaker intervened to close off discussion and ruled immediately. His decision is reproduced in extenso below.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: The Chair feels that there has been sufficient argument on the point of privilege raised by the honourable Member for Kootenay West and to which the honourable member for Nanaimo—Alberni spoke. The Chair has been assisted by the interventions from all sides of the House. I am persuaded by the honourable Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Jacques Guilbault)—and that argument was supported by the honourable Member for York Centre (Hon. Robert Kaplan)—that the Chair should not move without great care in ruling on whether or not a communication sent under the frank is a question of privilege. However, having said that, I think it is clear that there could be cases where, depending upon the content of the communication sent under the frank, it could be a question of privilege if the content worked against the right of Members to free expression and the carrying out of their obligations as Members.

I have had the opportunity to look carefully at the document in question. It is the view of the Chair—without at the moment commenting on the propriety of sending that particular document, and I want that clearly understood that I am not commenting on that at the moment—that it is not a question of privilege.

The question of propriety, which has been clearly raised as a matter of concern to honourable members, is properly a matter that ought to be taken up in another place. The Chair has no power to allow a private Member to table the particular document, and the Chair cannot unilaterally refer the matter to whatever committee might be appropriate to do so. That is a matter which Members can consider among themselves, and there are other means to deal with the issue. Again, I find that it is not a question of privilege. I am not commenting on whether it may very well be an appropriate subject in front of another forum.

I want to thank all honourable Members for their interventions which have been helpful to me. Especially I want to thank the honourable Member for Kootenay West and the honourable Member for Nanaimo—Alberni for bringing notice of this and giving me the opportunity to see in advance the actual document.

F0106-e

33-2

1986-10-16