DOCSLIB.ORG

A Matter of Privilege: a Discussion Paper on Canadian Parliamentary Privilege in the 21St Century

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Matter of Privilege: a Discussion Paper on Canadian Parliamentary Privilege in the 21St Century A MATTER OF PRIVILEGE: A DISCUSSION PAPER ON CANADIAN PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE IN THE 21ST CENTURY Subcommittee on Parliamentary Privilege of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures, and the Rights of Parliament Members The Honourable George Furey, Chair The Honourable Serge Joyal, P.C. The Honourable Elaine McCoy The Honourable Pierre Claude Nolin The Honourable Vernon White January 2015 Clerk of the Subcommittee: Charles Robert Analyst from the Library of Parliament: Dara Lithwick TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION: AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW AND RENEW PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE IN CANADA ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 A. The Senate Rules Committee Subcommittee on Parliamentary Privilege ..................................... 4 PART I: PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE: TRACING ITS HISTORY TOWARDS A CONTEMPORARY APPROACH ................................................................................................................................................. 5 A. Parliamentary Privilege: History ...................................................................................................... 5 B. Towards a contemporary approach: Evolution of parliamentary privilege in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand ................................................................................................................................... 7 1. The United Kingdom ..................................................................................................................... 7 2. Australia ...................................................................................................................................... 12 3. New Zealand .............................................................................................................................. 16 PART II: PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE IN CANADA ............................................................................. 19 A. Privilege Since Confederation ....................................................................................................... 19 1. Privilege and the Constitution .................................................................................................... 19 2. Parliamentary Reviews of Rights, Immunities and Privileges .................................................... 21 B. The Courts, Parliamentary Privilege and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ........... 23 1. “Necessity” as the frame to interpret a privilege ........................................................................ 24 2. The Supreme Court of Canada, Parliamentary Privilege, and the Charter ............................... 26 C. Privilege in the provinces: Varying approaches to codification ..................................................... 33 D. Observations of the Subcommittee on Parliamentary Privilege in Canada .................................. 37 PART III: FRAMEWORK TO ADAPT ELEMENTS OF PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE IN CANADA TO CONTEMPORARY NORMS ...................................................................................................................... 39 A. From the Necessity Test to an Accountability Framework: A Canadian Approach to Renew Parliamentary Privilege ................................................................................................................. 39 B. Freedom of Speech ....................................................................................................................... 40 1. Should the scope of freedom of speech be modified? ............................................................... 41 2. Proceedings in Parliament ......................................................................................................... 47 3. Observations of the Subcommittee to Adapt the Privilege of Freedom of Speech to Contemporary Norms ................................................................................................................. 49 C. The Collective Rights of the Senate and House of Commons to Regulate their Internal Affairs/ Exclusive Cognizance ................................................................................................................... 52 1. Developments abroad ................................................................................................................ 53 2. Canadian developments: Parliament is not a “statute-free zone” .............................................. 54 3. Observations of the Subcommittee to Adapt the Collective Rights of the Senate and House of Commons to Regulate their Internal Affairs to Contemporary Norms ....................................... 55 D. Disciplinary Powers ....................................................................................................................... 57 i 1. Procedural Fairness: Disciplining Individual Parliamentarians .................................................. 58 2. Procedural Fairness: Disciplining non-Parliamentarians ........................................................... 61 3. Observations of the Subcommittee to Adapt the Disciplinary Powers of the Senate and House of Commons to Contemporary Norms ....................................................................................... 65 E. Freedom from Arrest in Civil Actions and Related Individual Privileges ....................................... 68 1. Freedom from arrest in civil actions ........................................................................................... 68 2. Freedom from being subpoenaed to attend court as a witness ................................................. 71 3. Freedom from jury service .......................................................................................................... 73 4. Freedom from obstruction, interference, intimidation and molestation ...................................... 76 CONCLUSION: LOOKING AHEAD ........................................................................................................... 79 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................................ 81 A. Legislation ...................................................................................................................................... 81 1. Canadian – Constitutional and Federal ...................................................................................... 81 2. Canadian - Provincial ................................................................................................................. 81 3. International ................................................................................................................................ 82 B. Jurisprudence ................................................................................................................................ 82 1. Canadian .................................................................................................................................... 82 2. International ................................................................................................................................ 83 C. Parliamentary Materials and Government Reports ....................................................................... 84 1. Canada ....................................................................................................................................... 84 2. International ................................................................................................................................ 85 D. Secondary Materials ...................................................................................................................... 85 ii INTRODUCTION: AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW AND RENEW PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE IN CANADA Parliamentary privilege, an essential component of parliamentary democracy, exists to enable Parliament to function effectively and efficiently without undue impediment. Originally developed in Westminster as a means of preventing interference by the sovereign in the workings of Parliament,1 it has developed in parliaments throughout the British Commonwealth. In Canada, it is enshrined in the Constitution Act, 1867, at section 18 and through its preamble,2 And is further confirmed in section 4 of the Parliament of Canada Act.3 The rights and immunities associated with parliamentary privilege include the following4: The rights of individual parliamentarians (as well as witnesses at committees) and the collective rights of the Senate and House of Commons to freedom of speech from outside impeachment for things said in the course of parliamentary proceedings; The collective rights of the Senate and the House of Commons to regulate their own affairs related to their debates and proceedings, also known as exclusive cognizance; The collective rights of the Senate and the House of Commons to sanction or discipline for breach of their privileges and for contempt; The freedom of individual parliamentarians from arrest in civil actions and related privileges (i.e. freedom from being subpoenaed in court as a witness, freedom from jury service, freedom from obstruction, interference, intimidation and molestation). While for decades the understanding of parliamentary privilege was reasonably uniform and standard throughout the British Commonwealth, the evolution of parliamentary democracy has impacted the development of the
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 Process Lpbooklet 2016 15Th Edition.Qxp Booklet00-01 12Th Edition 11/18/16 3:00 PM Page 1
    LPBkltCvr_2016_15th edition-1.qxp_BkltCvr00-01 12th edition 11/18/16 2:49 PM Page 1 South Carolina’s Legislative Process LPBooklet_2016_15th edition.qxp_Booklet00-01 12th edition 11/18/16 3:00 PM Page 1 THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS LPBooklet_2016_15th edition.qxp_Booklet00-01 12th edition 11/18/16 3:00 PM Page 2 October 2016 15th Edition LPBooklet_2016_15th edition.qxp_Booklet00-01 12th edition 11/18/16 3:00 PM Page 3 THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS The contents of this pamphlet consist of South Carolina’s Legislative Process , pub - lished by Charles F. Reid, Clerk of the South Carolina House of Representatives. The material is reproduced with permission. LPBooklet_2016_15th edition.qxp_Booklet00-01 12th edition 11/18/16 3:00 PM Page 4 LPBooklet_2016_15th edition.qxp_Booklet00-01 12th edition 11/18/16 3:00 PM Page 5 South Carolina’s Legislative Process HISTORY o understand the legislative process, it is nec - Tessary to know a few facts about the lawmak - ing body. The South Carolina Legislature consists of two bodies—the Senate and the House of Rep - resentatives. There are 170 members—46 Sena - tors and 124 Representatives representing dis tricts based on population. When these two bodies are referred to collectively, the Senate and House are together called the General Assembly. To be eligible to be a Representative, a person must be at least 21 years old, and Senators must be at least 25 years old. Members of the House serve for two years; Senators serve for four years. The terms of office begin on the Monday following the General Election which is held in even num - bered years on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Modernizing Canada's Electoral System: Instant Runoff Voting As The
    Modernizing Canada’s Electoral System: Instant Runoff Voting as the Best Alternative By Maxime Dubé, as an individual Summary In the context of electoral reform brought about by the current government, many electoral systems come into contention for replacing the current first-past-the-post (FPTP) system. In this brief, it is argued that the instant-runoff voting (IRV) system is the best alternative for the current FPTP system in Canada. It solves most of Canadians’ issues with the current system, while presenting itself as the least challenging option for all bodies implicated in a federal election. Additionally, the IRV system does not produce coalition governments like other systems, thus allowing the state to remain strong and effective. The adoption of mandatory voting should only be considered after researching methods that will incentivize citizens to vote. Finally, online voting should not to be considered, due to potential security concerns. Introduction The present FPTP system is an electoral system that has been, and still is widely used throughout the world. It “is one of the oldest and simplest electoral systems”1 For instance, this voting system is presently used in all legislative elections in Canada, for national parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom and the United States of America, as well as for India and most Caribbean islands2. With the election of the current majoritarian Liberal government in the 2015 general election, one of the electoral promises made by the party and its leader, Justin Trudeau, was that the general election of 2015 would be the last federal election to be held with the FPTP system3.
    [Show full text]
  • The Legislature
    6 The Legislature Key Terms Ad hoc Committees (p. 241) Also known as a working legislative committee, whose mandate is time-limited. Adjournment (p. 235) The temporary suspension of a legislative sitting until it reconvenes. Auditor General (p. 228) An independent officer responsible for auditing and reporting to the legislature regarding a government’s spending and operations. Backbenchers (p. 225) Rank-and-file legislators without cabinet responsibilities or other special legislative titles or duties. Bicameral legislature (p. 208) A legislative body consisting of two chambers (or “houses”). Bill (p. 241) A piece of draft legislation tabled in the legislature. Budget (p. 236) A document containing the government’s projected revenue, expenditures, and economic forecasts. Budget Estimates (p. 237) The more detailed, line-by-line statements of how each department will treat revenues and expenditures. By-election (p. 208) A district-level election held between general elections. Coalition government (p. 219) A hung parliament in which the cabinet consists of members from more than one political party. Committee of the Whole (p. 241) Another name for the body of all legislators. Confidence convention (p. 208)The practice under which a government must relinquish power when it loses a critical legislative vote. Inside Canadian Politics © Oxford University Press Canada, 2016 Contempt (p. 224) A formal denunciation of a member’s or government’s unparliamentary behaviour by the speaker. Consensus Government (p. 247) A system of governance that operates without political parties. Crossing the floor (p. 216) A situation in which a member of the legislature leaves one political party to join another party.
    [Show full text]
  • Religion, Faith and Spirituality in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia
    Feature Religion, Faith and Spirituality in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia This article aims to further a conversation about the role of religion, faith, and spirituality in public institutions in Canada by examining the practice of prayer in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. The authors provide a background of prayer in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, an overview of the differing customs in provincial and territorial legislative assemblies in Canada, and also public controversies and court cases which have arisen in response to these conventions. Following an analysis of prayers delivered at the opening of legislative sessions of the 2017 CanLIIDocs 247 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia from 1992 to 2016, the article concludes by comparing the content of prayers delivered to self-reported rates of religiosity, spirituality, and faith amongst the general British Columbia population. Chardaye Bueckert, Robert Hill, Megan Parisotto and Mikayla Roberts Introduction prayers delivered to self-reported rates of religiosity, spirituality, and faith amongst the general British Contemporary Canada is largely conceived of Columbia population. By examining these opening as a secular society; yet some historic religious prayers, we hope to illuminate the representation of elements remain entrenched in Canadian democratic different religions within the Legislative Assembly of institutions, including the practice of prayer in British Columbia. It is important to note that due to provincial legislatures. This article aims to further data limitations, this examination will be a “snapshot” a conversation about the role of religion, faith, and of faith-based conventions in the Legislature Assembly spirituality in public institutions in Canada by of British Columbia, rather than a comprehensive examining the practice of prayer in the Legislative analysis of how different faith groups are represented Assembly of British Columbia.
    [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]
  • What to Do About Question Period: a Roundtable
    What to do about Question Period: A Roundtable Michael Chong, MP; Marlene Jennings, MP; Mario Laframboise, MP; Libby Davies, MP; Tom Lukiwski, MP On May 7, 2010 a motion calling for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to recommend changes to the Standing Orders and other conventions governing Oral Questions was introduced by the member for Wellington–Halton Hills. Among other things the Committee would consider ways of (i) elevating decorum and fortifying the use of discipline by the Speaker, to strengthen the dignity and authority of the House, (ii) lengthening the amount of time given for each question and each answer, (iii) examining the convention that the Minister questioned need not respond, (iv) allocating half the questions each day for Members, whose names and order of recognition would be randomly selected, (v) dedicating Wednesday exclusively for questions to the Prime Minister, (vi) dedicating Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday for questions to Ministers other than the Prime Minister in a way that would require Ministers be present two of the four days to answer questions concerning their portfolio, based on a published schedule that would rotate and that would ensure an equitable distribution of Ministers across the four days. The motion was debated on May 27, 2010. The following extracts are taken from that debate. Michal Chong (Conservative, Wel- Since this motion was made public, I have received lington–Halton Hills): Canadians phone calls, letters and emails from citizens across know that something is not quite right this country. From Kingston, a proud member of the with their democratic institutions.
    [Show full text]
  • Scanned by Camscanner
    Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner IRONING OUT THE CREASES: RE-EXAMINING THE CONTOURS OF INVOKING ARTICLE 142(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION Rajat Pradhan* ABSTRACT In the light of the extraordinary and rather frequent invocation of Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, this note expounds a constructive theory of perusing Article 142(1) by the Supreme Court. The central inquiry seeks to answer the contemporaneous question of whether Article 142 can be invoked to make an order or pass a decree which is inconsistent or in express conflict with the substantive provisions of a statute. To aid this inquiry, cases where the apex court has granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent in exercise of Article 142(1) have been examined extensively. Thus the note also examines the efficacy and indispensible nature of this power in nebulous cases where the provisions of a statute are insufficient for solving contemporary problems or doing complete justice. INTRODUCTION An exemplary provision, Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India envisages that the Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such enforceable decree or order as is necessary for doing ‘complete justice’ in any cause or matter pending before it. While the jurisprudence surrounding other provisions of the Constitution has developed manifold, rendering them more concrete and stable interpretations, Article 142(1) is far from tracing this trend. The nature and scope of power contemplated in Article 142(1) has continued to be mooted imaginatively.
    [Show full text]
  • CANADIAN POLITICS Contents
    McMaster University, Department of Political Science, POLSCI 4O06/6O06 CANADIAN POLITICS Fall/Winter 2018-19 Instructor: Dr. Geoffrey Cameron Office: KTH 505 Email: [email protected] Office Hours: Friday, 12pm – 2pm Seminar: Friday, 8:30am – 11:20am Room: KTH 105 Contents Course Description .......................................................................................................... 3 Course Objectives ........................................................................................................... 3 Required Materials and Texts ......................................................................................... 3 Course Evaluation – Overview ........................................................................................ 3 Course Evaluation – Details ............................................................................................ 3 Attendance (10%) ........................................................................................................ 3 Participation (10%) ...................................................................................................... 4 Class Presentation (5%) .............................................................................................. 4 In-Class Test (10%), September 28............................................................................. 4 Research Proposal (15%), due February 8 ................................................................. 4 Research Proposal Presentation (5%) ........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Complementarity: the Constitutional Role of the Senate of Canada
    SENATE SENAT The Honourable V. Peter Harder P.C. L’honorable V. Peter Harder C.P. Government Representative in the Senate Représentant du gouvernement au Sénat CANADA Complementarity: The Constitutional Role of the Senate of Canada April 12, 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 2 A. Complement to the House: A Constitutional Role Rooted in the 7 Appointive Principle B. In the Senate, Self-Restraint is the Constitutional Watchword 11 C. The Senate’s Power to Amend, Legislate and Influence Public Policy 17 D. We “Ping”, But We Generally Ought not “Pong” 28 E. A Prudent Yet Vigilant Approach to Fiscal and Budgetary Initiatives 30 i. Restricted Access to the Purse Strings 30 ii. A Tradition of Vigilance and Self-Restraint on Confidence and 31 Budgetary Matters iii. The Omnibus Caveats 33 F. The Senate Extraordinary and Rarely Used Power to Defeat 37 Government Legislation G. Democratic Deference to the Government’s Election Platform 41 H. Private Members’ Bills and the Senate’s “Pocket” Veto 47 Epilogue: Better Serving Canadians 49 Complementarity: The Constitutional Role of the Senate of Canada April 2018 - Page 1 of 51 INTRODUCTION “If we enact legislation speedily, we are called rubber stamps. If we exercise the constitutional authority which the Senate possesses under the British North America Act, we are told that we are doing something that we have no right to do. I do not know how to satisfy our critics.” The late former Senator Carl Goldenberg, Senate Debates of January 11, 1974 Many senators are working hard to close a credibility gap that was created by many difficult years and prove the Senate’s public value as an appointed upper chamber.
    [Show full text]