On October 5, the House of Commons Board of Internal Economy (BIS) announced that vaccination against COVID-19 would be required of any member wishing to access the parliamentary precinct.
Note that the BRI is made up of a few deputies from the various political parties represented in the Chamber. And that its sole mandate is to govern the administrative order of this same assembly.
In light of the collective mood in these times of pandemic, I guess that many readers will have the reflex to judge perfectly the imposition of compulsory vaccination on deputies.
Nevertheless, the decision of the BIS very likely violated the procedures and practices of the House of Commons as well as the Constitution Act, 1867. It’s not nothing !
Indeed, by taking this action, to say the least perilous, given the related provisions of the Parliament of Canada Act, the BIS ruled on a notion that is at the heart of the living concept of “parliamentary privilege”: free access for elected representatives to parliament in order to represent their constituents.
By virtue of the Constitution Act, 1867 as well as the Standing Orders of the House of Commons (the Standing Orders), “parliamentary privilege” – the primary purpose of which is to ensure that every Canadian is represented in Parliament, without hindrance – has two components: “rights and immunities”. Members and that of the House as a whole ”(the Standing Orders).
In the chapter of the individual privilege – that which concerns each member -, one finds in particular the “freedom of speech” and the “protection against obstruction, interference, intimidation and brutality”. As for the collective privilege, and always by way of example, it is a question of the “right to regulate its internal affairs” and of the “right to benefit from the presence and the services of the deputies” (the Standing Orders).
Therefore, the imposition of compulsory vaccination on elected officials can be seen as a direct violation of individual privilege, namely an obstruction – the denial of access to parliament. And what about the elected officials who, to get to Ottawa, have to take the plane!
It should be remembered, however, that the collective rights of the Chamber take precedence over individual rights. Following this logic, elected officials are then able to modify the latter during a vote in the House.
The essential question is therefore the following: is the BRI entitled to impose compulsory vaccination on elected officials? The answer is definitely no. Because in doing so, the BIS not only exceeded its powers, but it also made an unconstitutional gesture.
Faced with such a misunderstanding of the parliamentary institution and the democratic rights embodied by our elected officials, they see themselves in the duty to revise the decision of the BRI, and this, from the start of the parliamentary term, scheduled for November 22. Only deputies, during a vote in the Chamber, are empowered to impose compulsory vaccination with regard to elected officials’ access to parliament.
This is a matter of the utmost importance for our parliamentary democracy and respect for the Constitution.
What do you think? Express your opinion