Roundup: No, you can’t challenge a censure motion in court

Posted on by

Ontario MPP Sarah Jama has written to Doug Ford to ask him to retract his motion in the legislature to censure her and prevent her from speaking until she offers an apology for the comments she made at the start of the Israel-Hamas conflict. In it, Jama says that if Ford doesn’t, she’ll take the matter to the courts. The problem? The courts won’t touch any kind of legislative censure motion because it falls under the issue of parliamentary privilege and the separation of powers.

We have to remember that Parliament and the legislatures are self-governing, as they should be. That’s what keeps them independent of the powers of the King—and yes, the courts to count as the powers of the King, as the King is the fount of justice, and justice is carried out in his name. (That’s also why we have a doctrine by which the King can do no wrong, but rather, can merely act on bad advice, and the minister who offered that is responsible for it). Part of that self-governing power is the legislature’s ability to discipline its members, which is important because you don’t want an external authority able to do that, because it can create a great deal of interference in the workings of your legislature.

This being said, the fact that she was censured at all is a problem, and as I wrote in a column a couple of weeks ago, is part of a broader pattern that his happening that is extremely concerning (and is almost always hypocritically done by parties who claim to be all about free speech, but reveal themselves to only be pro-speech they like). And it should be up to voters to discipline parties that are abusing these powers to punish those they disagree with, but that also means keeping up the pressure on them so that they know that they are going to be punished for it.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukraine says that in spite of that Liberian-flagged ship getting hit by a Russian missile, their alternative Black Sea corridor is working. Really! President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is also hoping for a conference next month on a joint weapon production agreement with the US and defence contractors.

Good reads:

  • Justin Trudeau called the recent attacks on Jewish schools and centres to be “acts of terrorism,” and spoke about his plans to lead the party in the next election.
  • Mélanie Joly has had to walk back comments she said about calling for a ceasefire or negotiations with Hamas, and returned to “humanitarian pauses.”
  • No Canadians approved to leave Gaza were able to yesterday.
  • The regulations to remove the carbon price on heating oil are now in effect, and there is some further explanation for how its base price has soared in recent years.
  • Mark Holland says the federal government will consult with provincial dental associations on the next steps in dental care if they sign confidentiality agreements.
  • A full accounting of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan from an academic author took nearly a decade in delays to publish after many attempts at interference.
  • Here is a look at the state of the move to change the culture of sexual misconduct in the military, and the sense of inertia that is setting in.
  • The Foreign Interference public inquiry is taking shape, and a lot of familiar faces from the Emergencies Act inquiry are taking roles with this process.
  • There are more details from the transcripts from Cameron Ortis’ defence.
  • The Supreme Court of Canada ruled 4-3-1 (yikes!) that the City of Sudbury was responsible when a contractor killed a pedestrian on a job site.
  • The Commons health committee has had to swap out members because their upcoming study on women’s health featured 11 of 12 MPs being men.
  • The Commons defence committee is calling on the government to open up the tender for surveillance aircraft (even though Bombardier is proposing vapourware).
  • The Star talks to Green co-leader Jonathan Pednault, who is striking a very pessimistic tone about the direction we are going in.
  • The Alberta government is looking to change the law around conflicts of interest to allow Cabinet to set the limits on gifts without disclosure by regulation alone.
  • My weekend column calls out the demands to scrap the carbon price under the lie that it’s not working as concern-trolling defeatism.

Odds and ends:

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.

3 thoughts on “Roundup: No, you can’t challenge a censure motion in court”

  1. This being said, the fact that she was censured at all is a problem, and as I wrote in a column a couple of weeks ago, is part of a broader pattern that his happening that is extremely concerning (and is almost always hypocritically done by parties who claim to be all about free speech, but reveal themselves to only be pro-speech they like)

    Canada is sanctioning individuals and entities “who directly promote Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine,” the Canadian Foreign Ministry announced on Nov. 10.

    • If you can’t tell the difference between censuring a sitting member of the legislature, and sanctioning a hostile state’s propagandists, I can’t help you.

      • We are not at war with Russia. We have no treaty obligations to Ukraine. I have seen no indication of Russia attacking Canada.

        What reason is there to suppress free speech in Canada? Perhaps the Government dislikes dissent?

Comments are closed.