DOCSLIB.ORG

Intervener Honourable-Serge-Joyal-P.C..Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Intervener Honourable-Serge-Joyal-P.C..Pdf Court File No: 37543 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF QUEBEC) BETWEEN: JACQUES CHAGNON, ès qualités de président de l’Assemblée nationale du Québec APPELLANT (Respondent) 10 AND: SYNDICAT DE LA FONCTION PUBLIQUE ET PARAPUBLIQUE DU QUÉBEC (SFPQ) RESPONDENT (Appellant) AND: THE HONOURABLE SERGE JOYAL, P.C. and THE SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO INTERVENERS 20 FACTUM OF THE INTERVENER, THE HONOURABLE SERGE JOYAL, P.C. (Pursuant to Rules 37 and 42 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada) THE HON. SERGE JOYAL, P.C., SENATOR CONWAY BAXTER WILSON LLP/s.r.l. 250 East Block 400-411 Roosevelt Avenue Parliament of Canada Ottawa, ON K2A 3X9 Ottawa, ON K1A 0A4 David P. Taylor Tel: 613-943-0434 Fax: 613-943-0441 Tel: 613-691-0368 Email: [email protected] Fax: 613-688-0271 Email: [email protected] Avocat à la retraite, Intervener Counsel for the Intervener, The Honourable Serge Joyal, P.C. ORIGINAL TO: SUPREME COURT OF CANADA THE REGISTRAR 301 Wellington Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0J1 COPIES TO: LANGLOIS AVOCATS, S.E.N.C.R.L. NOËL & ASSOCIÉS 13e étage, Complexe Jules-Dallaire, T3 111, rue Champlain 2820, boul. Laurier Gatineau, QC J8X 3R1 Quebec, QC G1V 0C1 François LeBel Pierre Landry Tel: 418-650-7022 Tel: 819-503-2178 Fax: 418-650-7075 Fax: 819-771-5397 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Ottawa Agent for the Appellant ASSEMBLÉE NATIONALE DU QUÉBEC Édifice Pamphile-Le May 1035, rue des Parlementaires, bureau 3.54 Quebec, QC G1A 1A3 Ariane Beauregard Seigfried Peters Tel: 418-266-1101, exts. 70302 / 70290 Fax: 418-528-0993 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the Appellant POUDRIER BRADET AVOCATS, SUPREME ADVOCACY LLP S.E.N.C. 100 - 340, rue Gilmour 100 - 70, rue Dalhousie Ottawa, ON K2P 0R3 Quebec, QC G1K 4B2 Geneviève Baillargeon-Bouchard Marie-France Major Tel: 418-780-3333 Tel.: 613-695-8855 Fax: 418-780-3334 Fax: 613-695-8580 [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Respondent Ottawa Agent for the Respondent 2 BLAKE, CASSELS & GRAYDON LLP GOWLING WLG (CANADA) LLP Box 25 2600 - 160 Elgin Street Commerce Court West Ottawa, ON K1P 1C3 Toronto, ON M5L 1A9 Catherine Beagan Flood Jeffrey W. Beedell Emily Hazlett Tel: 613-786-0171 Christopher DiMatteo Fax: 613-788-3587 Tel: 416-863-2269 Email: [email protected] Fax: 416-863-2653 Email: [email protected] Ottawa Agent for the Intervener, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Counsel for the Intervener, Ontario Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario TABLE OF CONTENTS Description Page PARTS I & II – OVERVIEW AND QUESTIONS IN ISSUE 1 PARTS III – ARGUMENT 2 A. National Assembly employees have a statute-based employment 2 relationship B. The scope of parliamentary privilege in relation to the “management of 7 employees” is to be narrowly construed C. The Speaker’s authority regarding the exclusion of “strangers” cannot 9 override obligations otherwise set out in an assembly’s organizing statute PARTS IV AND V – ARGUMENT ON COSTS AND ORDER SOUGHT 10 PART VI – TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 11 PART VII – LEGISLATION 11 PART VIII — OTHER SOURCES 12 1 PARTS I & II – OVERVIEW AND QUESTIONS IN ISSUE 1. Parliamentary privilege plays a significant role in the Canadian constitutional architecture. It stands alongside other constitutional rights and principles, like judicial independence1 and responsible government,2 in ensuring that each branch of government fulfills its basic constitutional functions.3 However, this Court has been clear that parliamentary privilege is an ordinary part of Canadian law, not an exceptional field – lex parliamentaria – outside the cognizance of other actors and institutions. In keeping with this principle, this Court, in Canada (House of Commons) v. Vaid, eschewed approaches to parliamentary privilege that construe Parliament as an ‘enclave’ shielded from the ordinary laws of the land, and rejected categorical approaches for a functional one.4 2. The purposive approach to parliamentary privilege that this Court adopted in Vaid recognizes 10 that there are important limits to parliamentary privilege, and ties those limits directly to the functional role of legislative assemblies in Canadian democracy.5 3. This Court has articulated a clear division of responsibilities between the legislative and judicial branches as regards parliamentary privilege: the judiciary interprets and reviews the scope of parliamentary privilege (based on the criterion of necessity to an assembly’s legislative and deliberative functions), while the legislative branch is responsible for the exercise of recognized privileges.6 In addition, the judiciary must apply a heightened level of scrutiny to cases involving those who, much like the custodians who were dismissed in this case, are not legislators, as “a finding that a particular area of parliamentary activity is covered by privilege has very significant legal consequences for non-members who claim to be injured by parliamentary conduct”.7 This 20 heightened level of scrutiny is equally applicable to an assembly’s relations with its employees. 1 Reference re Remuneration of Judges of the Prov. Court of P.E.I.; Reference re Independence and Impartiality of Judges of the Prov. Court of P.E.I., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3 at paras. 105-109. 2 Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Assn. v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2001 SCC 15 at para. 65. 3 In Ontario v. Criminal Lawyers Association of Ontario, 2013 SCC 43 at paras. 27-29, a majority of this Court articulated the respective roles of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches as follows: (a) legislative branch: making policy choices, adopting laws, and holding the purse strings of government; (b) executive branch: implementing and administering the policy choices and laws made/adopted by the legislative branch; and (c) judicial branch: maintaining the rule of law and protecting the fundamental liberties and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter. 4 Canada (House of Commons) v. Vaid, 2005 SCC 30 at paras. 29(1), 29(3) and 66-70. 5 Vaid at paras. 43-46. 6 Vaid at para. 40. 7 Vaid at para. 30, see also at para. 29(12). SFPQ c. Chagnon, 2017 QCCA 271 at para. 8. 2 4. The Intervener reformulates the three questions stated by the Appellant Speaker and the Respondent Union as follows,8 to be dealt with in this order: a) Has the National Assembly defined, by statute, its relations to employees who have a close connection to its exercise of its legislative and deliberative functions? b) Do the employees at issue in this appeal perform functions integral to the National Assembly’s exercise of its legislative and deliberative functions such that their management falls within the scope of any privilege claim, as considered in Vaid? c) Is there a relationship between the privilege to exclude “strangers” from an assembly’s proceedings and the dismissal of employees who implement that privilege? 10 PART III – ARGUMENT A. National Assembly employees have a statute-based employment relationship 5. Canada’s federal and provincial legislative assemblies have defined their privileges by statute.9 In keeping with the rule of law, analyses of assertions of privilege ought to begin with these legislative provisions. Generally, statutory assertions of privilege take the form of a “general claim” of privileges, immunities, and powers, or “specific claims” dealing with particular subjects. In Quebec, the “general claim” to privilege is made by asserting, in section 42 of the Act respecting the National Assembly (“ARNA”), that “[t]he Assembly has the power to protect its proceedings against all interference”.10 Specific claims are made in sections 43-55.11 8 Appellant’s factum at pp. 6-8 [A.F.]; Respondent’s factum at pp. 8-10 [R.F.]. 9 See s. 4 of the Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1, s. 4; Legislative Assembly Privilege Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 259, s. 1; Legislative Assembly Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-9, ss. 8-15; The Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, 2007, S.S. 2007 c. L-11.3, ss. 23-32; The Legislative Assembly Act, C.C.S.M., c. L110, ss. 34-52; Legislative Assembly Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.10, ss. 35-53; Act respecting the National Assembly, R.S.Q., c. A-23.1, ss. 42-56; Legislative Assembly Act, R.S.N.B. 2014, c. 116, ss. 2, 4-6, 8-9, and 13-14; House of Assembly Act, R.S.N.S. 1989 (1992 Supp), c. 1, ss. 26-35; Legislative Assembly Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. L-7, ss. 12 and 27- 37; House of Assembly Act, R.S.N.L. 1990, c. H-10, ss. 6(3) and 8-19. 10 An Act respecting the National Assembly, R.S.Q., c. A-23, s. 42. In British Columbia and Alberta, the “general claim” is made with reference to the privileges, powers, and immunities of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador make “general claims” with reference to the privileges, powers, and immunities of the House of Commons of Canada. For their part, Manitoba and Ontario define a series of specific privileges, powers, and immunities possessed by the legislative assembly, followed by a provision stipulating that nothing in these respective acts deprives the legislative assembly of any privilege, power or immunity it would otherwise be entitled to enjoy. 11 An Act respecting the National Assembly, R.S.Q., c. A-23, ss. 43-55. 3 6. As described in greater detail below, the ARNA also provides the Office of the National Assembly with the discretion to set employment conditions for certain employees that differ from those set out in the collective agreements that would otherwise apply.12 7.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Brief by Professor François Larocque Research Chair In
    BRIEF BY PROFESSOR FRANÇOIS LAROCQUE RESEARCH CHAIR IN LANGUAGE RIGHTS UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA PRESENTED TO THE SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES AS PART OF ITS STUDY OF THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGES REFORM PROPOSAL UNVEILED ON FEBRUARY 19, 2021, BY THE MINISTER OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND OFFICIAL LANGUAGES, ENGLISH AND FRENCH: TOWARDS A SUBSTANTIVE EQUALITY OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGES IN CANADA MAY 31, 2021 Professor François Larocque Faculty of Law, Common Law Section University of Ottawa 57 Louis Pasteur Ottawa, ON K1J 6N5 Telephone: 613-562-5800, ext. 3283 Email: [email protected] 1. Thank you very much to the honourable members of the Senate Standing Committee on Official Languages (the “Committee”) for inviting me to testify and submit a brief as part of the study of the official languages reform proposal entitled French and English: Towards a Substantive Equality of Official Languages in Canada (“the reform proposal”). A) The reform proposal includes ambitious and essential measures 2. First, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages for her leadership and vision. It is, in my opinion, the most ambitious official languages reform proposal since the enactment of the Constitution Act, 1982 (“CA1982”)1 and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”),2 which enshrined the main provisions of the Official Languages Act (“OLA”)3 of 1969 in the Canadian Constitution. The last reform of the OLA was in 1988 and it is past time to modernize it to adapt it to Canada’s linguistic realities and challenges in the 21st century. 3. The Charter and the OLA proclaim that “English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada.”4 In reality, however, as reported by Statistics Canada,5 English is dominant everywhere, while French is declining, including in Quebec.
    [Show full text]
  • The Parliament
    The Parliament is composed of 3 distinct elements,the Queen1 the Senate and the House of Representatives.2 These 3 elements together characterise the nation as being a constitutional monarchy, a parliamentary democracy and a federation. The Constitution vests in the Parliament the legislative power of the Common- wealth. The legislature is bicameral, which is the term commoniy used to indicate a Par- liament of 2 Houses. Although the Queen is nominally a constituent part of the Parliament the Consti- tution immediately provides that she appoint a Governor-General to be her representa- tive in the Commonwealth.3 The Queen's role is little more than titular as the legislative and executive powers and functions of the Head of State are vested in the Governor- General by virtue of the Constitution4, and by Letters Patent constituting the Office of Governor-General.5 However, while in Australia, the Sovereign has performed duties of the Governor-General in person6, and in the event of the Queen being present to open Parliament, references to the Governor-General in the relevant standing orders7 are to the extent necessary read as references to the Queen.s The Royal Style and Titles Act provides that the Queen shall be known in Australia and its Territories as: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.* There have been 19 Governors-General of Australia10 since the establishment of the Commonwealth, 6 of whom (including the last 4) have been Australian born. The Letters Patent, of 29 October 1900, constituting the office of Governor- General, 'constitute, order, and declare that there shall be a Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief in and over' the Commonwealth.
    [Show full text]
  • SUBMISSION to the HOUSE of COMMONS STANDING COMMITTEE on PROC Thursday, April 23, 2020
    131.194 SUBMISSION TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROC Thursday, April 23, 2020 Gregory Tardi, DJur. Executive Director, Institute of Parliamentary and Political Law Executive Editor, Journal of Parliamentary and Political Law MANDATE FOR THE PROC STUDY The House of Commons of Canada’s Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs would like to invite you to appear before the Committee in view of its study of Parliamentary Duties and the COVID-19 Pandemic. The House of Commons has instructed the committee to study ways in which members can fulfill their parliamentary duties while the House stands adjourned on account of public health concerns caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, including the temporary modification of certain procedures, sittings in alternate locations and technological solutions including a virtual Parliament Le Comité permanent de la procédure et des affaires de la Chambre des communes du Canada souhaite vous inviter à comparaître dans le cadre de son étude sur les fonctions parlementaires et la pandémie de la COVID-19. La Chambre des communes a donné instruction au comité d’entreprendre une étude sur la façon dont les députés peuvent exercer leurs fonctions parlementaires alors que la Chambre est ajournée pour des raisons de santé publique reliées à la pandémie de la COVID-19, y compris des modifications temporaires à certaines procédures, des séances en différents lieux et des solutions technologiques, dont l’idée d’un parlement virtuel. The following text was prepared by its author alone. No member of the Government of Canada or of the House of Commons of Canada was consulted.
    [Show full text]
  • Legislative Assembly of Manitoba
    ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE on PRIVILEGES and ELECTIONS 31-32 Elizabeth 11 Chairman Mr. Phi/ Eyler Constituency of River East VOL. XXXI No. 63 - 2:00 p.m., SATURDAY, 28 JANUARY, 1984. Printed by the Office of the 0.-ns Printer. Province of Allltliloba . MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name Constituency Party ADAM,Hon. A.R. (Pete) Ste. Rose NDP ANSTET� Hon. Andy Spnngfield NDP ASHTON, Steve Thompson NDP BANMAN,Robert (Bob) La Verendrye PC BLAKE,David R. (Dave) Minnedosa PC BROWN, Arnold Rhineland PC BUCKLASCHUK,Hon. John M. Gimli NDP CARROLL, Q.C., Henry N. Brandon West IND CORRIN, Q.C., Brian Ellice NDP COWAN, Hon. Jay Churchill NDP DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent St. Boniface NDP DODICK,Doreen Riel NDP DOERN, Russell Elm wood NDP DOLIN, Hon. Mary Beth Kildonan NDP DOWNEY, James E. Arthur PC DRIEDGER, Albert Emerson PC ENNS, Harry Lakeside PC EVANS,Hon. Leonard S. Brandon East NDP EYLER,Phil River East NDP FILMON, Gary Tu xedo PC FOX, Peter Concordia NDP GOURLAY, D.M. (Doug) Swan River PC GRAHAM, Harry Virden PC HAMMOND, Gerrie Kirkfield Park PC HARAPIAK, Harry M. The Pas NDP HARPER, Elijah Rupertsland NDP HEMPHILL,Hon. Maureen Logan NDP HYDE, Lloyd Portage la Prairie PC JOHNSTON,J. Frank Sturgeon Creek PC KOSTYRA,Hon. Eugene Seven Oaks NDP KOVNATS, Abe Niakwa PC LECUYER,Hon. Gerard Radisson NDP LY ON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling Charleswood PC MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. AI St. James NDP MALINOWSKI,Donald M.
    [Show full text]
  • HT-EM Logos Stacked(4C)
    EXCLUSIVE POLITICAL COCOVERAGE:OVVEERARAGGE: NNEWS,REMEMBERING FEATURES, AND ANALYSISLYSISS INSIDEINNSSIDIDE ACCESS TO HILL TRANSPORTATION POLICY BRIEFING PP. 19-33 JEAN LAPIERRE P. 10 INFORMATION P. 14 CLIMBERS P.41 TWENTY-SEVENTH YEAR, NO. 1328 CANADA’S POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT NEWSWEEKLY MONDAY, APRIL 4, 2016 $5.00 NEWS SYRIAN REFUGEES NEWS NDP ‘Very, very Wernick planning to stick NDP policy few’ Syrian convention refugees came around PCO for a while, ‘one for the to Canada push on for ‘nimbleness and ages,’ many from refugee eager to vote camps: CBSA offi cial Bolduc agility’ in public service on Mulcair’s leadership BY ABBAS RANA “Very, very few” of the BY LAURA RYCKEWAERT thousands of Syrian refugees Privy Council who have come to Canada came Clerk Michael More than 1,500 NDP members from refugee camps and most had Wernick says will attend the party’s policy con- been living in rented apartments his current vention in Edmonton this week to in Syria’s neighbouring countries, priorities include help shape the NDP’s future. a senior CBSA offi cial told creating a public Many are eager to see a review Parliament in February. service that has vote on NDP Leader Tom Mulcair’s Conservatives are now accusing ‘nimbleness leadership and there’s much talk the federal government of convey- and agility’ so about the direction of the party and ing a false perception to Canadians it can meet its “soul,” after its crushing defeat that refugees were selected from the needs of a in the last federal election. refugee camps. But the government ‘busy, ambitious NDP analyst Ian Capstick says it has never said all Syrian government that said the event will be “one for the wants to do a lot ages.” Continued on page 35 in it’s mandate, but I think this Continued on page 34 would be true had we been NEWS SENATE dealing with a blue government NEWS PUBLIC SERVICE or an orange Sen.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontario: the Centre of Confederation?
    University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository University of Calgary Press University of Calgary Press Open Access Books 2018-10 Reconsidering Confederation: Canada's Founding Debates, 1864-1999 University of Calgary Press Heidt, D. (Ed.). (2018). "Reconsidering Confederation: Canada's Founding Debates, 1864-1999". Calgary, AB: University of Calgary Press. http://hdl.handle.net/1880/108896 book https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives 4.0 International Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca RECONSIDERING CONFEDERATION: Canada’s Founding Debates, 1864–1999 Edited by Daniel Heidt ISBN 978-1-77385-016-0 THIS BOOK IS AN OPEN ACCESS E-BOOK. It is an electronic version of a book that can be purchased in physical form through any bookseller or on-line retailer, or from our distributors. Please support this open access publication by requesting that your university purchase a print copy of this book, or by purchasing a copy yourself. If you have any questions, please contact us at [email protected] Cover Art: The artwork on the cover of this book is not open access and falls under traditional copyright provisions; it cannot be reproduced in any way without written permission of the artists and their agents. The cover can be displayed as a complete cover image for the purposes of publicizing this work, but the artwork cannot be extracted from the context of the cover of this specific work without breaching the artist’s copyright. COPYRIGHT NOTICE: This open-access work is published under a Creative Commons licence.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenging the Validity of an Act of Parliament: the Effect of Enrolment and Parliamentary Privilege." Osgoode Hall Law Journal 14.2 (1976) : 345-405
    Osgoode Hall Law Journal Article 5 Volume 14, Number 2 (October 1976) Challenging the Validity of an Act of Parliament: The ffecE t of Enrolment and Parliamentary Privilege Katherine Swinton Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj Article Citation Information Swinton, Katherine. "Challenging the Validity of an Act of Parliament: The Effect of Enrolment and Parliamentary Privilege." Osgoode Hall Law Journal 14.2 (1976) : 345-405. http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol14/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Osgoode Hall Law Journal by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT: THE EFFECT OF ENROLMENT AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE By KATHERINE SWINTON* A. INTRODUCTION Parliamentary sovereignty has proved a topic of fascination to scholars of constitutional law for many years, as the volume of literature on the subject well demonstrates. Admittedly, the interest has been greater in Commonwealth countries other than Canada. In this country, students of constitutional law have focussed their attention on the division of powers between federal and provincial governments, since federalism has presented problems requiring immediate solution. Yet even here, the question of parliamentary sovereignty has been given consideration, and it is increasingly attracting discussion as interest increases in the patriation of the constitution and statutory protection for individual and minority rights. Within a study of parliamentary sovereignty, reference is normally made to the enrolled bill principle or rule. This precept, regarded by some as an aspect of sovereignty and by others simply as a rule of evidence, states that the parliamentary roll is conclusive - an Act passed by Parliament and en- rolled must be accepted as valid on its face and cannot be challenged in the courts on grounds of procedural irregularity.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hon. Serge Joyal, P.C., O.C., O.Q., FRSC
    Bio - Heritage Ottawa WWI talk_Feb 28 2018 The Hon. Serge Joyal, P.C., O.C., O.Q., FRSC The Honourable Serge Joyal is a lawyer, jurist and Senator in the Parliament of Canada since 1997. He holds a Bachelor’s Degree (1964) and a Law Degree (1968) from the Université de Montréal. He also earned a Master’s Degree in Administrative Law from the University of Sheffield (1970), he registered for the Master’s program in Constitutional Law at the London School of Economics (1971), and received a Postgraduate Diploma in Comparative Law from the University of Strasbourg (1972). His interests and specialisation are in legal affairs, including constitutional and parliamentary law. His political career began in 1974 when he was elected to the House of Commons. During his decade in the Commons, he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury Board President (1980), Minister of State (1981), and Secretary of State (1982-1984). He was instrumental in establishing the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages (1980) and served as Co-President of the Joint Committee on the Patriation of the Canadian Constitution (1980-81), charged with the task of studying the resolution that became the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Following his appointment to the Senate in (1997), Mr. Joyal has been a long-serving active member on various committees including the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, as well as of the Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament Committee. In addition, he is currently the Vice-Chair of the Conflict of Interest Committee, of which he was Chair for 7 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Privilege? Kinship in Canada's Parliament
    Feature Parliamentary Privilege? Kinship in Canada’s Parliament In the Canadian parliamentary context, there are numerous contemporary and historical examples of dynastic politicians, but there has been curiously little academic study of this phenomenon. Many questions pertaining to kinship in parliaments remain unanswered. What is the rate of kinship in the Canadian parliament? What has been the rate of change in political kinship over time and can this change be explained? What advantages may dynastic politicians possess and what constraints do they face? This article measures the prevalence of kinship within the lower house in Canada’s federal parliament and presents data on kinship since Canada’s first parliament. After looking at economic and electoral data, it argues that change to make the electoral system more open and socially inclusive offers an explanation for the observable drop in rates of kinship over time. Finally, the paper will conclude with suggested courses for future research. Matthew Godwin Rates of Kinship since Canada’s First Parliament A further 35 Members of Parliament have had kin in parliament through marriage. Winona Grace The below analysis begins in 1867, when Canada MacInnis was married to CCF MP Angus MacInnis, was granted Dominion status from Great Britain, up who served concurrently with her father. A number to the 2011 federal election, and provides data points of female MPs in the early 20th century were related in Figure 1 of ‘Kinship by Seat Total’; which is to say, to other members through marriage, such as the the percentage of MPs who have had relatives serve Independent Conservative MP Martha Louise Black.
    [Show full text]
  • Tuesday, May 2, 2000
    CANADA 2nd SESSION • 36th PARLIAMENT • VOLUME 138 • NUMBER 50 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Tuesday, May 2, 2000 THE HONOURABLE ROSE-MARIE LOSIER-COOL SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE This issue contains the latest listing of Senators, Officers of the Senate, the Ministry, and Senators serving on Standing, Special and Joint Committees. CONTENTS (Daily index of proceedings appears at back of this issue.) Debates and Publications: Chambers Building, Room 943, Tel. 996-0193 Published by the Senate Available from Canada Communication Group — Publishing, Public Works and Government Services Canada, Ottawa K1A 0S9, Also available on the Internet: http://www.parl.gc.ca 1170 THE SENATE Tuesday, May 2, 2000 The Senate met at 2:00 p.m., the Speaker pro tempore in the Last week, Richard Donahoe joined this political pantheon and Chair. there he belongs, now part of the proud political history and tradition of Nova Scotia. He was a greatly gifted and greatly respected public man. He was much beloved, especially by the Prayers. rank and file of the Progressive Conservative Party. Personally, and from my earliest days as a political partisan, I recall his kindness, thoughtfulness and encouragement to me and to others. THE LATE HONOURABLE Dick was an inspiration to several generations of young RICHARD A. DONAHOE, Q.C. Progressive Conservatives in Nova Scotia. • (1410) TRIBUTES The funeral service was, as they say nowadays, quite “upbeat.” Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, I have the sad It was the mass of the resurrection, the Easter service, really, with duty to record the death, on Tuesday, April 25, of our former great music, including a Celtic harp and the choir from Senator colleague the Honourable Richard A.
    [Show full text]
  • Le Passage Du Canada Français À La Francophonie Mondiale : Mutations Nationales, Démocratisation Et Altruisme Au Mouvement Richelieu, 1944 – 1995
    Le passage du Canada français à la Francophonie mondiale : mutations nationales, démocratisation et altruisme au mouvement Richelieu, 1944 – 1995 par Serge Dupuis A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfilment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2013 © Serge Dupuis 2013 I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. Je déclare par la présente que je suis le seul auteur de cette thèse. Il s’agit d’une copie réelle de la thèse, y compris toute révision finale requise, telle qu’acceptée par les examinateurs. Je comprends que ma thèse pourrait être rendue disponible électroniquement au public. Serge Dupuis 30 August 2013 ii Abstract / Résumé This thesis argues that French Canada did not simply fragment into regional and provincial identities during the 1960s and 1970s, but was also kept afloat by the simultaneous emergence of a francophone supranational reference. In order to demonstrate this argument, I have studied the archives of the Richelieu movement, a French Canadian society founded in 1944 in Ottawa, which was internationalized in the hopes of developing relationships amongst the francophone elite around the world. This thesis also considers the process of democratization and the evolution of conceptions of altruism within the movement, signalling again the degree to which the global project of the Francophonie captivated the spirits of Francophones in North America, but also in Europe, the Caribbean and Africa.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Privilege
    Patterns of change – parliamentary privilege How do the privilege provisions applying to Australia’s national parliament compare internationally? Has the curtailment of traditional provisions weakened the Parliament’s position? Bernard Wright Deputy Clerk, House of Representatives December 2007 PATTERNS OF CHANGE – PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE 2 1. Summary 1.1 The law of parliamentary privilege applying to Australia’s national parliament has undergone significant change, as has the way matters of privilege and contempt are dealt with. This paper examines the law in Australia in comparison to the provisions in other parliaments. It does so by summarising three key provisions and commenting on the law of privilege in the wider legal context. It refers to two models for the privileges and immunities which apply in contemporary parliaments, and notes the way key provisions are dealt with in each model. The paper refers to adaptations in this area of law in other parliaments and to assessments that have been made of the needs of modern legislatures. It suggests that, paradoxically, the processes that involved significant reductions in traditional provisions applying to Australia’s national parliament have strengthened the parliament. The paper ends by speculating about some of the issues that may arise in this area in the future1. 1 I am most grateful to Professor Geoff Lindell, who read through a draft of this paper and made very helpful suggestions for improvement - BW PATTERNS OF CHANGE – PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE 3 2. Privilege in the national Parliament – three key features Freedom of speech 2.1 Members of the national Parliament enjoy the privilege of freedom of speech2.
    [Show full text]