Angry in the Great White North

From the House of Commons Procedure and Practice:

Any disregard of or attack on the rights, powers and immunities of the House and its Members, either by an outside person or body, or by a Member of the House, is referred to as a "breach of privilege" and is punishable by the House. There are, however, other affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges. Thus, the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; obstructs or impedes any Member or Officer of the House in the discharge of their duties; or is an offence against the authority or dignity of the House, such as disobedience of its legitimate commands or libels upon itself, its Members, or its Officers. "The rationale of the power to punish contempts, whether contempt of court or contempt of the Houses, is that the courts and the two Houses should be able to protect themselves from acts which directly or indirectly impede them in the performance of their functions." In that sense, all breaches of privilege are contempts of the House, but not all contempts are necessarily breaches of privilege.

Holding on to boxes clearly labeled with the heraldic arms of the House of Commons indicating they are under the control of the House as part of an administrative move would seem to fall into the category of an obstruction of an Officer of the House in the discharge of his or her duties:

So what happens if Holland and Jennings are found in contempt? Hard to say, because it almost never happens:

The reluctance to invoke the House's authority to reprimand, admonish or imprison anyone found to have trampled its dignity or authority and that of its Members appears to have become a near constant feature of the Canadian approach to privilege. Though the power of the House to imprison remains, it is difficult to foresee circumstances arising that would oblige the House to invoke it.

So technically, Holland and Jennings could be chucked into a cell, but it's highly doubtful.

There is, however, no doubt that the Canadian House of Commons remains capable of protecting itself from senseless abuse should the occasion ever arise.

In only a very few cases in Canadian practice has the House, or a procedure committee report, recommended a punishment. A 1976 committee report did chastise a former Member (Auguste Choquette) who claimed that many parliamentarians had obtained undue financial considerations. After the former Member maintained his allegation under questioning, the committee concluded that his attitude was intemperate and irresponsible, but recommended no further consideration be given to the matter. In the 1987 Parry case, the Committee also did not recommend punishment and the Member's apology to the House put an end to the matter. In the 1996 Jacob case, the Committee noted that while the Member's actions were ill advised, they did not amount to contempt or a breach of parliamentary privilege.

So maybe an apology, if Speaker Peter Milliken rules that Holland and Jennings is in contempt. The fact that the Speaker has not dismissed the charge out of hand and is instead requiring that Holland and Jennings reply means that Milliken is taking this seriously.

Stay tuned.