Le privilège parlementaire comme modification constitutionnelle judiciaire et [donc] inconstitutionnelle (Parliamentary Privilege as Judicial [and then] Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendment)

French abstract: Le privilege, au sens generique, ou les privileges que le droit canadien reconnait aux parlementaires pourraient-ils etre detournes de leur objet afin de voir, en matiere disciplinaire et de controle des depenses notamment, la majorite d’un parlement en opprimer la minorite ? Tel etait l’enjeu institutionnel de l’affaire Boulerice et al. c. Bureau de regie interne de la Chambre des communes et al., ou une demande de controle judiciaire, introduite par des deputes federaux a l'encontre de decisions du Bureau de regie interne de la Chambre des communes (BRI) relative au remboursement de depenses, se heurtait a une objection de privilege parlementaire. Le 20 fevrier 2019, la Cour d'appel federale ordonnait la radiation de la demande en controle judiciaire des deputes Boulerice et al., au motif que les decisions du BRI en cause, relatives au controle des depenses des parlementaires, participaient de l'exercice d'un privilege parlementaire d'origine legislative relevant d'une categorie « etablie peremptoirement », de sorte que sa necessite n'avait pas a etre demontree. La Cour d'appel federale pretendait ainsi suivre le principe de l'arret de la Cour supreme du Canada dans l'affaire Vaid . L’autorisation d’en appeler a ete refusee par cette derniere juridiction. Les conclusions de la Cour d’appel federale etaient pourtant erronees, et les enjeux de l'affaire, de prime importance, ainsi que l'attestent d'ailleurs les travaux du Senat canadien ou ceux de la Commission de Venise, dont est maintenant membre le Canada. English abstract: Could the privilege, in the generic sense, or privileges that Canadian law recognizes for parliamentarians be diverted from their purpose in order to see, in matters of discipline and control of expenditures in particular, the majority of a parliament oppress the minority? This was the institutional issue at stake in Boulerice et al. v. House of Commons Board of Internal Economy et al., where an application for judicial review brought by members of Parliament against decisions of the House of Commons Board of Internal Economy (BOIE) concerning the reimbursement of expenses was met with an objection of parliamentary privilege. On February 20, 2019, the Federal Court of Appeal ordered that the application for judicial review by the Members of Parliament Boulerice et al. be struck out on the ground that BOIE decisions at issue were part of the exercise of a parliamentary privilege of legislative origin falling within a peremptory established category, so that its necessity did not have to be demonstrated. The Federal Court of Appeal thus purported to follow the principle of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Vaid. Leave to appeal was denied by the latter court. The Federal Court of Appeal's conclusions were erroneous, however, and the issues at stake in the case were of prime importance, as attested by the work of the Canadian Senate and the Venice Commission, of which Canada is now a member.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.