On Oct. 26, 2009, Parliament’s Question Period came briefly to a halt when over 100 environmental activists disrupted the proceedings. The demonstrators were the invited guests of NDP leader, Jack Layton and they were present to champion Bill C-311. C-311 is a private NDP member’s bill that, among other things sets stringent targets for greenhouse gas emissions.
The protesters were removed from the visitors’ gallery in small groups and there were reports of injuries to both some of the demonstrators and security guards.
Contempt of Parliament
The House of Commons has the power to cite individuals for contempt of Parliament in order to protect itself from those who, by their conduct or words, offend the authority or dignity of the House. This power exists in all countries that have the British parliamentary system of government and some countries have codified their contempt powers. Canada, like Great Britain, relies on its inherent jurisdiction to punish offenders who are found to be in contempt of Parliament. Punishments can include fine and imprisonment although these are almost never resorted to; the usual disposition is a stern reprimand that is issued usually after the offender apologizes to the House of Commons.
A variety of acts can constitute contempt of Parliament. The most common occurrence is when someone is accused of either lying to or misleading the House or one of its committees. A failure to answer questions or produce documents can also lead to contempt proceedings. As well, insulting Members of Parliament or appearing in the House while intoxicated can also lead to findings of contempt of Parliament.
Despite the fact that some of the proscribed conduct, such as insulting a member occurs frequently, contempt of Parliament findings are extremely rare. Nevertheless there have been a couple of high profile instances of this procedure being invoked in recent years.
George Radwanski
The former journalist was appointed as Canada’s Privacy Commissioner in 2000. In 2003, less than halfway through his seven year term, Radwanski became the subject of some scathing remarks made by the Auditor General of Canada, Sheila Fraser. Fraser referred to Radwanski’s time as Privacy Commissioner as a “reign of terror” and made serious allegations of misspending public funds. The Auditor General referred her findings concerning Radwanski’s spending to the RCMP for investigation.
In June, 2003, Radwanski resigned. On Nov. 4, 2003, a Common’s committee recommended that the former Privacy Commissioner be found guilty of contempt of Parliament for lying, altering records and failing to properly explain his spending of government funds. Later, MPs voted to find him in contempt but also decided not to impose any further punishment in light of the fact that he apologized to the House of Commons for his actions. Although not part of the contempt proceedings, the Treasury Board stripped him of his lucrative pension.
In 2003, after the RCMP concluded their investigation, George Radwanski was charged with fraud and breach of trust. In February 2009, he was acquitted of the criminal charges by a judge who criticized his actions but found that they fell short of criminal activity.
Barbara George
Barbara George was the Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP. In 2003, allegations surfaced concerning the police force’s management of its pension plan. The allegations included nepotism, questionable expenses and the hiring of consultants who were paid a lot of money for little work.
A joint investigation was commenced by the RCMP and the Ottawa Police Force. Working on the investigation was RCMP Staff-Sgt. Mike Frizzell but he was removed part way through it. In 2007, George testified before a Parliamentary committee and swore under oath that she had nothing to do with Frizzell being taken off of the investigation. After e-mail correspondence involving the Deputy Commissioner that proved otherwise came to light, the committee recommended that George be found to be in contempt of Parliament for misleading the committee.
On April 10, 2008, MPs voted that Barbara George to be in contempt of Parliament for providing false and misleading evidence. The Members decided that the contempt finding was a sufficient penalty and did not impose any further punishment.
A Lack of Evidence
Jack Layton denies that he had anything to do with the disturbance in the visitor’s gallery in the House of Commons. Barring any concrete evidence to the contrary coming to light in the future, Conservative House Leader Jay Hill’s call to have the NDP leader be found to be in contempt of Parliament is unlikely to get very far.
 |
