PRIVILEGES. 
5Y 
In the session of 1868—9 the Ontario Legislature passed he, a 
an Act conferring on the Legislative Assembly the same defining 
privileges as were enjoyed by the Dominion House of Pr ie8% 
Commons. The validity of the Act was doubted, and the 
Dominion Minister of Justice referred the question to the 
law officers of the Crown in England, who held that it was 
ultra vires’, 
Similar Acts were passed by Quebec in 1870, by British 
Columbia in 1871, and by Ontario in 1876. All these were 
allowed to come into force, on the ground that anyone affected 
by them could test their legality in a court of law. 
Amongst the powers conferred by the Quebec Act of Ex parte 
1870 are a number of powers regarding the summoning of Dan- | 
witnesses and the punishment of persons disobeying such 
summons. The validity of these sections was raised in Ez 
parte Dansereau®, and the appeal side of the Quebec Court 
of Queen’s Bench held that the power of summoning witnesses 
was necessarily incident to the powers of the Provincial 
Legislatures, and that a Provincial Legislature had “a right 
bo exercise such powers and privileges as are mere incidents 
of the powers specifically vested in them and without which 
they could not properly exercise the duties devolving upon 
them 3” 
A somewhat similar point was raised in Landers v. Landers v. 
Woodworth * with respect to the right of the Nova Scotia Hor 
Assembly to remove one of its members for contempt. The 
Supreme Court of the Dominion held that the Legislative 
Assembly of Nova Scotia had in the absence of express 
legislation on the subject, no power to remove one of its 
members for contempt, unless he was actually engaged in 
obstructing the business of the House, but that the removal 
of a member for not making an apology required by the 
1 Can. Sess. Papers 1877, No. 89, p. 202. 
* 19 L. C. Jurist 210: 2 Cart. 165. 8 per Dorion C. J. 
4 2 Can, 8. C. R. 158: 2 Cart. 220. 
5—_9