Freedom from obstruction, interference, intimidation and molestation: franking privileges; alleged misuse for political purposes

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. Member for Malpeque on November 27, 2008, concerning a letter that the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board sent to grain producers to encourage them to support particular candidates in upcoming elections for directors of the Canadian Wheat Board. I would like to thank the hon. Member for Malpeque, who kindly provided the Chair with a copy of the letter sent by the Parliamentary Secretary, for having raised this important matter, as well as the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre, and the hon. Member for Yukon for their comments. In raising this question of privilege, the hon. Member for Malpeque alleged that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board inappropriately used confidential mailing lists and the franking privileges of the House for political purposes. He argued that the use of a Member's parliamentary letterhead and franking privileges to influence a democratic process constituted a violation of Members' privileges. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, in his reply, suggested that the actions of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board did not impede any Member's ability to carry out his or her parliamentary duties. He added that there was no evidence that the Parliamentary Secretary had used any confidential list. The Members for Winnipeg South Centre and Yukon reiterated the concerns expressed by the Member for Malpeque regarding the use of franking privileges, parliamentary letterhead and confidential lists, and questioned whether the Parliamentary Secretary's use of some of the House's resources for this purpose was appropriate. It might be useful to remind hon. Members of some of the principles involved. Franking privileges are granted to Members of Parliament by way of the Canada Post Corporation Act. The question of franking privileges has arisen and been ruled on in the past. One of the cases dealt with the use of the frank by some Members of the House to send messages in support of a political party in a provincial election. In his ruling, found in the Debates of October 16, 1986, on pages 405-6, Mr. Speaker Fraser stated: 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. In that instance, he ruled that there was no question of privilege. Another case pertained to a Member's use of householder mailings of a partisan political nature in the course of a by-election. Just as with the interventions of the Members for Winnipeg South Centre and Yukon, several Members at that time questioned the interpretation of the House's guidelines and use of resources in this regard. In that case, Speaker Fraser stated on March 18, 1987, on page 4301 of the Debates: In any case, the breach of guidelines does not necessarily constitute a breach of privilege. (...) It seems to the Chair that nothing which has been complained of has in any way obstructed the House or any of its Members in carrying out the activities for which they were elected. As in the cases cited, the current dilemma contains two elements. First, the question of whether the franking privileges granted by law to Members were used appropriately. Such questions are better addressed through administrative avenues. The second component is whether the mailing affected the Member's privileges. The Chair could find a prima facie privilege in this case if arguments had been made that the distribution of the material in question defamed or in some way interfered with the Member's ability to carry out his parliamentary duties. But no such arguments have been made in this instance and there is no evidence to this effect. The Chair listened carefully to the arguments of hon. Members and reviewed the content of the letter sent by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board. I have considered the matter in light of earlier Speakers' decisions on the same subject and the wording of the House of Commons Board by-laws. The Chair has concluded that there are not sufficient grounds for finding a prima facie breach of privilege in this case. The Member for Malpeque may wish to pursue administrative avenues on the general issue of franking privileges or the contents of frank[ed] [2] mail. I thank hon. Members for their interventions in this matter.. [1] Debates, November 27, 2008, pp. 320-1. [2] The published Debates read "frank" instead of "franked".