Contempt of Parliament

Last week Parliament ordered the federal government to release thousands of records on Afghan prisoners. The order for records to be produced followed revelations that Canadian officials did have some knowledge that Afghan prisoners captured by Canadian soldiers and handed to local Afghan authorities were subjected to abuse. Trade Minister Stockwell Day immediately told a press conference the government would not honour the direction of Parliament. In theory if the Conservatives ignore the order, as Day suggested, Parliament could vote to find the government in contempt. Parliament would then take recommendations by a committee on how to proceed in any contempt case.

What does all this actually mean?

Contempt of Parliament is the offense of obstructing the parliament in the carrying out of its functions. According to the House of Commons Procedure and Practice manual, contempt of Parliament is "any conduct which offends the authority or dignity of the House, even though no breach of any specific privilege may have been committed." The punishment for contempt of Parliament is in the discretion of Parliament but seldom amounts to more than censure for misconduct although historically contempt of Parliament has been punished by jail time.

The power to find a person in contempt of Parliament comes from the Constitution and the historic right of the United Kingdom Parliament to protect its "privileges, immunities, and powers." There is no doubt as to the authority of Parliament to make a finding of contempt.

Actions amounting to contempt of Parliament vary, but include:

- Refusing to testify before, or to produce documents to, Parliament or parliamentary committee;

- Deliberately misleading Parliament or a parliamentary committee;

- Appearing before Parliament or a parliamentary committee in a state of intoxication; and

- Attempting to threaten or bribe a Parliament or Member of Parliament.

Although seldom used, the power of Parliament to punish wrongful actions by a finding of contempt is not merely an historical curiosity. For example, in October of this year Conservative House Leader Jay Hill called for NDP Leader Jack Layton to be charged with contempt of Parliament, saying he helped protesters who disrupted Question Period. The suggestion was not followed up on by the government.

The most recent example of an actual finding of contempt of Parliament was in April of last year. Parliament cited RCMP deputy commissioner Barbara George for contempt for deliberately misleading a parliamentary committee over the Income Trust Scandal. Although found in contempt, George was not punished beyond receiving admonition for misleading Parliament.

In another fairly recent case, in 2003, Parliament found George Radwanski guilty of contempt of Parliament, saying he provided misleading information about his spending while federal privacy commissioner. Radwanski had apologized in Parliament for his behaviour but he was still found guilty of contempt and censured for his conduct.

Although neither George nor Radwanski received further punishment, historically Parliament has imprisoned for contempt of Parliament.

In 1912, the Parliament summoned Montreal businessman R. C. Miller to appear as a witness in connection with an inquiry into whether there had been any bribes for government contracts involving the Diamond Light and Heating Company. Miller ignored the summons.

A year later, in early February 1913, Miller appeared before the Parliament but refused to answer any questions claiming his answers might prejudice ongoing litigation. Parliament ordered Miller to appear again. On February 18, 1913 he appeared but again refused to answer questions.

Parliament did not accept the suggestion that Miller could not testify because of ongoing litigation and ordered his imprisonment until he agreed to answer questions. Miller was taken to the Carleton County jail. There is no further parliamentary record related to Miller and it is assumed that he remained in jail until Parliament was prorogued about three and a half months later.

While it is highly unlikely that imprisonment would ever be used in the context of the Afghan prisoner motion, the fact jail is, theoretically, available shows how serious a contempt of Parliament is.