In countries with a parliamentary system of government, contempt of Parliament is the offence of obstructing the legislature in the carrying out of its functions, or of hindering any legislator in the performance of his duties.
Typology
The concept is common in countries with a parliamentary system in the Westminster model, or which are derived from or influenced by the Westminster model. The offence is known by various other names in jurisdictions in which the legislature is not called "Parliament", most notably contempt of Congress in the United States. Actions that may constitute contempt of Parliament include: deliberately misleading a house of the legislature, or a legislative committee; refusing to testify before, or to produce documents to, a house or committee; and attempting to influence a member of the legislature by bribery or threats.
In some jurisdictions, a house of the legislature may declare any act to constitute contempt, and this is not subject to judicial review. In others, contempt of Parliament is defined by statute; while the legislature makes the initial decision of whether to punish for contempt, the person or organisation in contempt may appeal to the courts. Some jurisdictions consider contempt of Parliament to be a criminal offence.
Australia
In the Commonwealth of Australia, the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 defines contempt of Parliament as:
Contempt decisions by the House of Representatives or the Senate are subject to review by federal courts. This follows after the Browne–Fitzpatrick privilege case, in which Morgan, Fitzpatrick and Frank Browne were denied legal representation, subsequently convicted, and served 90 days each in jail for publishing an allegedly defamatory article against a member of Parliament.
Punishments are limited under the Act to (for individuals) a fine of $5,000 and/or six months' imprisonment, or (for corporations) a fine of $25,000.
In the Senate, allegations of contempt are heard by the Privileges Committee, which decides whether or not contempt was committed, and if so, what punishment is to be imposed. In practice, there have been very few times when a hearing determined that anyone was in contempt, and on no occasions has anyone been punished beyond a warning, with an apology and/or other appropriate remedial action.
Canada
Federal level
The power to find a person in contempt of Parliament stemmed from Section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867 in which "The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed ... shall not confer any privileges, immunities, or powers exceeding those at the passing of such Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and by the members thereof."
Regarding the above-mentioned "privileges" there is an important difference between the "individual parliamentary privileges" and "collective parliamentary privileges". This difference is also important in any case of "breach of privilege" as it applies to parliamentary privilege in Canada.
Contempt citation cases for individuals
Rarely has the Canadian federal parliament invoked its power to find an individual in contempt: There were "contempt citation" cases in 1913, 1976, 2003, 2008 and 2011.
The April 10, 2008 case involved Royal Canadian Mounted Police deputy commissioner Barbara George who was cited for contempt for deliberately misleading a parliamentary committee over an income trust scandal. She was ultimately found in contempt but was not punished further than the motion itself.
The March 2011 contempt citation case involved Conservative MP Bev Oda. While she was found to be prima facie in contempt by the Speaker, Oda was not formally held in contempt because Parliament was dissolved before a vote could be held on the matter.
Contempt citation cases for governments
On March 9, 2011, Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada Peter Milliken made two contempt of Parliament rulings: The first found that a Conservative Party cabinet minister, Bev Oda, could possibly be in contempt of Parliament. The second ruling found the Cabinet could possibly be in contempt of Parliament for not meeting Opposition members' requests for details of proposed bills and their cost estimates, an issue which had "been dragging on since the fall of 2010". Milliken ruled that both matters must go to their responsible parliamentary committees and that the committee was required to report its findings to the Speaker by March 21, 2011 – one day before the proposal of the budget.