Talk:Contempt of parliament

Australia
Speeking of Australia (the only country listed - the U.K. would probably be more approriate), they have only had one "trial at bar" in 100 years. - Matthew238 04:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Contempt of Parliament as a Crime
Please stop edit warring over whether contempt of Parliament is a crime. If the claim that it is a crime has been challenged, the claim should be removed from the article until a reliable source can be introduced backing it up.--Trystan (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. There is absolutely nothing to support the ridiculous notion that contempt of parliament constitutes a criminal offence.  Just because there is a potential for penal sanction does not in and of itself make something a criminal offence.  Many provincial offences carry the possibility of jail time -- that does not make them criminal offences.  "Criminal offence" has a very particular meaning in the context of law, and contempt of parliament does not apply.
 * In one of my edit comments I made reference to the source of the power in Canada. The power of censure (which includes the power to punish for contempt) is one of Parliament's ancient privileges, and does not derive from, nor is it in any way related to, their criminal law power.  The federal government's criminal law power was defined in the Margarine reference as a specific prohibition with a  penal sanction with a legitimate public purpose.  Contempt cannot be viewed as any kind of specific prohibition, as it is so broad and general a concept.  It also not a statutory prohibition, as the powers derive from our unwritten constitution.
 * Furthermore, in the current Canadian example which has gotten this debate going, was there really a genuine potential for penal sanction? How does one send "the Government" to jail?  You can't.PoliSciMaster (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. This is my first Wiki dispute, and I hope I am replying correctly in this format.

My definition of "crime" comes from the Collins dicitonary:

crime [kraɪm] n 1. (Law) an act or omission prohibited and punished by law 2. (Law) a. unlawful acts in general a wave of crime b. (as modifier) crime wave 3. an evil act 4. Informal something to be regretted it is a crime that he died young [from Old French, from Latin crīmen verdict, accusation, crime]

Contempt satisfies these requirements. Firstly, it is found in law. See the Parliament of Canada Act s.4, the Constitution Act s. 18. Secondly, conviction for CoP carries with it punishment, up to and including jail time at the discretion of Parliament.

I too am tired of the ping-pong editing, but since i see no reasons or references to convince me otherwise, I must insist that parliamentary contempt is a criminal law, enforced by the state, carrying with it the punishment of imprisonment.

Please, if anyone is to respond to this discussion, provide an alternative and recognized definition of "criminal law" that would exclusde contempt.

KBillie (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate where you are coming from, but a dictionary definiton of "crime" does not satisfy the legal definition of "criminal law" in a Canadian context. I have already provided you in my post above with the Supreme Court decision that defined criminal law in Canada (the Margarine reference).  I would also note that while the root of Parliament's power to censure (including for contempt) is found in section 18 of the Constitution Act (and reflected in section 4 of the Parliament of Canada Act), the offence is not defined in either.  They acknowledge ancient privileges and uphold their validity.  They do not establish criminal offences.  Let's ask a practical question: if one is convicted of a criminal offence, one would presume you would have a criminal record.  Would a finding of contempt be reflected in one's criminal record?  No.PoliSciMaster (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I fear, however, that your own definition will defeat you.

I have two points. FIrstly, that the contempt power falls within the scope of the Margarine reference you have provided. Secondly, the reference you have provided should be distinguished from the present case, since we are not discussing the power of the federal parliament to legislate a new criminal law. Rather, we are disputing a privision of the constitution which prohibits certain conduct, and has no bearing on the Constitution Act s. 91

Firstly, the prohibited conduct, for the purposes of satisfying the first part of Margarine, is interference with the privileges of Members of Parliament. Also, punishment for contempt brings with it a penal sanciton, imprisonment.

To address the second aspect of Margarine, the public purpose of the criminal law provision of contempt is to allow for the operation of Parliament by its members, and to compel the production of documents and witnesses for instance. Without the contempt provision, Parliament could become a merely cooperative rather than sovereign body.

My submission, therefore, remains that the Margarine test reaffirms the nature of the contempt law as criminal law. It is not, however, the appropriate test to use, since it only purports to deal with the constitutional sphere of teh federal power. It does not seek to redress the constitutional powers, which are described in s. 18 of the Constitution Act and in S.4 of the Parliament of Canada Act.

KBillie (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A substantive argument about whether Contempt of Parliament fits a given definition of crime is interesting, but not actually helpful. To be included in the article, the claim needs to be supported by citation to a neutral, third-party reliable source.--Trystan (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * An excellent point. I was typing a response while you were editing and was going to make a similar point: find me one single criminal or constitutional law professor who agrees that a finding of contempt is a criminal offence.  Problem is, you won't be able to find one.  If someone is found in contempt they don't get a criminal record, nor can they apply for a pardon.  Why?  Because it's not a criminal offence. PoliSciMaster (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I found this discussion with Professor Ned Franks about contempt. While the discussion relates to the Oda affair, in it he makes a clear distinction between a finding of contempt and criminal charges as being separate concepts. http://carolynbennett.liberal.ca/blog/q-and-a-with-ned-franks-on-bev-oda/ PoliSciMaster (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Having read the Ned Franks interview, it is clear that the Professor makes no finding whatsoever as to whether CoP qualifies as criminal law. What is says is that Forgery is a criminal offence, and that Parliament has discretion to enforce CoP or not.

If Contempt of Parliament is not a criminal law, then what kind of law is it? It certainly isn't civil law. It certainly isn't administrative law, since it is not subject to judical review. It is not any kind of private law. In addition to what I have submitted, It is clear by elimination that it must be criminal law.

KBillie (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by KBillie (talk • contribs) 19:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, he quite clearly makes that distinction. he is asked if criminal charges could arise.  If your position were correct, his response would have been "a finding of contempt is in and of itself a criminal charge."  Except he didn't say that.  he clearly addressed them as distinct and separate concepts.
 * As for your determination by "process of elimination" nothing of the sort is clear. Your listing of the types of law was hardly exhaustive, and in fact may have proven that it is not criminal: it is not subject to judicial review.  There is no appeal.  In fact, there is no trial.  It is at the discretion of the House.  It could be classed as constitutional law, or simply the Law of Parliament -- the lex parliamentaria.PoliSciMaster (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

exported text
For copyright license purposes I am noting here that in this edit I copied three paragraphs of text from Contempt of Parliament to Canadian federal election, 2011. —Mathew5000 (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)