Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T18:47:57.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Parliamentary Privilege in the Canadian House of Commons*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2014

W. F. Dawson
W. F. Dawson*
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Get access

Extract

Practically the only public acknowledgment of the vast powers of the House and the protection which is afforded the House and its members by the tradition of centuries is contained in the statement of the Speaker at the beginning of every new Parliament. When the Speaker leads the members of a new House of Commons to the Senate he claims from the governor general on their behalf “all their undoubted rights and privileges, especially that they may have freedom of speech in their debates, access to your Excellency's person at all reasonable times, and that their proceedings may receive from your Excellency the most favourable consideration.” These are, of course, immediately granted by the governor general.

The privileges of Parliament so briefly referred to and so perfunctorily granted are of two types. Some, are personal to every member of the House and enable him to carry out his parliamentary responsibilities without interference; others are the additional privileges of the House as a body, breach of which is considered in law to be analogous to contempt of court.

The former enable a member to speak on any subject free of any fear of legal responsibility for anything he may say. He is free from arrest under civil process while the House is in session and for a reasonable time before and after the session. He is also exempt during the session from duty as a witness or as a juror. Threats against a member and attempts to bribe him are likewise considered as breaches of privilege.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science/Revue canadienne de economiques et science politique , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , November 1959 , pp. 462 - 470
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 1959

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association in Saskatoon, June 5, 1959.

References

1 Statutes of Canada, 31 Vict., c. 23.

2 Revised Statutes of Canada (1952), c. 249.

3 S.C., 31 Vict., c. 24.

4 Ibid., 36 Vict., c. 1.

5 Canada, House of Commons Debates, Oct. 23, 1873, p. 11.

6 S.C., 39 Vict., c. 7.

7 Ibid., 57-58 Vict., c. 16.

8 Documents Relating to the Proceedings of the Royal Commission Established by Order in Council P.C. 411 of February 5, 1946, Including the First and Second Interim Reports of the Royal Commission (Ottawa, 1946), 24–5.Google Scholar

9 Debates, 03 15, 1946, pp. 4–8.Google Scholar

10 Ibid., April 16, 1877, pp. 1540-1.

11 Ibid., April 12, 1892, cols. 1283-1311.

12 Ibid., Feb. 26, 1914, pp. 1119-25; June 24, 1922, p. 3493; Feb. 17, 1956, p. 1305, etc.

13 Ibid., Nov. 8, 1867, p. 2.

14 On April 17, 1918; Feb. 24, 1942; Nov. 28, 1944.

15 1867, Rule 6.

16 Debates, 03 29, 1876, p. 906.Google Scholar

17 Ibid., June 4, 1929, p. 3228; Sept. 7, 1950, p. 390; May 22, 1951, p. 3288.

18 Ibid., May 10-15, 1879, pp. 1940-2046; Feb. 16-24, 1880, pp. 44-195.

19 Ibid., Feb. 22, 1875, p. 260.

20 Ibid., Feb. 12, 1956, pp. 1097-1113. Also statements in ibid., July 13, 1942, p. 4135, and July 11, 1956, pp. 5861-2.

21 Ibid., July 11, 1956, pp. 5861-2.

22 Ibid., Dec. 10, 1957, p. 2125.

23 Canada, House of Commons Journals, 03 21, 1912, p. 366.Google Scholar

24 Debates, 04 7, 1954, pp. 3845–7.Google Scholar

25 Ibid., July 19, 1958, pp. 2447-9; Aug. 9, 1958, pp. 3294-8.

26 Ibid., Jan. 27, 1959, p. 362.

27 Ibid., April 7, 1873, p. 67; May 2, 1878, pp. 2368-9 and Bourinot, J. G., Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada (4th ed., Toronto, 1916), 53n.Google Scholar

28 Journals, 04 17, 1873, pp. 167–9.Google Scholar

29 Debates, June 14, 1906, cols. 5266-320.

30 Ibid., May 31, 1956, pp. 4528-34.

31 Ibid., April 17, 1878, pp. 2057-67.

32 Second Report from the Committee of Privileges, H.C. 103 (1941) and Report from the Committee of Privileges, H.C. 235 (1950-1).

33 Standing Order 79.

34 Debates, 11 5, 1873, pp. 55–6.Google Scholar

35 Journals, 05 15, 1874, pp. 64–70.Google Scholar

36 Ibid., Feb. 24, 1875, pp. 122-4.

37 Ibid., March 16, 1876, pp. 145-60; March 3, 1880, pp. 87-8.

38 Debates, Sept. 29, 1891, cols. 6285-6.

39 Standing Order 17.

40 The orders issued to Mr. Macdonnell on February 16, 1880, to Mr. Connolly on June 5, 1891, to Mr. Senecal on August 27, 1891, and to Mr. Cinq-Mars on June 6, 1906, all specified the day.

41 Journals, 05 12, 1887, p. 121.Google Scholar

42 Ibid., April 7, 1873, p. 133.

43 The orders issued to Mr. Macdonnell on February 16, 1880, and to Mr. Connolly on June 5, 1891, did not indicate the cause of the summons. The order issued to Mr. Cinq-Mars on June 6, 1906, did so indicate.

44 In one case, that of Mr. Alderman Heney, the charge was such that his immediate arrest was ordered without the preliminary call to the Bar. Journals, 11 3, 1873, pp. 134–5.Google Scholar

45 A request for counsel has never been refused in Canada. In the United Kingdom counsel are not permitted to appear under similar circumstances.

46 Journals, 03 31, 1874, pp. 9–12.Google Scholar

47 Debates, Feb. 20, 1913, cols. 3645-741.

48 Journals, 04 17, 1873, pp. 167–71.Google Scholar

49 Debates, 06 14, 1906, pp. 5266–320.Google Scholar

50 As in the United Kingdom, so in Canada, the House cannot keep an offender in prison after the House has prorogued.

51 Two Ottawa policemen were summoned to appear in 1874 to answer questions about a warrant for the arrest of Louis Riel.

52 Most individuals called to the Bar fall into this category. The authors of offensive articles and recalcitrant witnesses appeared both as accused and witnesses.

53 Debates, 05 29, 1951, p. 3494.Google Scholar

54 Ibid., May 10, 1951, p. 2873.

55 Ibid., March 7, 1951, p. 995.

56 Ibid., March 17, 1955, p. 2101.

57 Ibid., Nov. 30, 1953, p. 443. When the Secretary of State for External Affairs kicked off the ball on Saturday afternoon [at a championship football game] did he have his eye on the ball or on Miss Saskatchewan?”

58 Ibid., June 5, 1956, p. 4751.

59 Ibid., May 8, 1956, p. 3702.

60 Ibid., May 4, 1956, p. 3563.