If for some reason the Canadian Parliament had the idea to impeach and convict someone, what would be the legal implications of that?
<p>I am 100% aware of what a no confidence motion is. This is emphatically not what I am referring to.</p>
<p>Impeachment is an unambiguous right of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to have, having been used for centuries even though nobody has been convicted in the last 200, starting in the Good Parliament of 1376 with the impeachment of Baron Latimer. The Commons can impeach and the Lords can convict anyone except the King of anything which is illegal under the laws. The King can pardon fines and imprisonment but cannot pardon the bar from office if the Lords applies such a thing as per the 1701 Act of Settlement.</p>
<p>Nobody has ever been impeached before in Canada.</p>
<p>Canada clearly has words in the Constitution to make its own similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and impeachment was attempted only 19 years before confederation in 1848. The accused survived a Commons vote, but nobody doubted the legal authority of the Commons was still valid.</p>
<p>Assume that the speaker either goes along with it, or else is sacked by the Commons and a pro impeachment speaker put in their place, or the Commons resolves to amend the rules letting them bypass a speaker who is an opponent of impeachment.</p>
<p>Then what?</p>

<p>Section 18 of the Constitution Act  1867 states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed, and
exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons, and by the
members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time
defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada, but so that any Act of the
Parliament of Canada defining such privileges, immunities, and powers
shall not confer any privileges, immunities, or powers exceeding those
at the passing of such Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons
House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland, and by the members thereof.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Note that the Parliament of Canada is responsible for defining the privileges of its houses, and there is no default fallback. The <a href="https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/p-1/page-1.html#h-389926" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Parliament of Canada Act 1985</a> define the privileges in section 4 as</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Senate and the House of Commons, respectively, and the members thereof hold, enjoy and exercise:<br />
(a) such and the like privileges, immunities and powers as, at the time of the passing of the Constitution Act, 1867, were held, enjoyed and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom and by the members thereof, in so far as is consistent with that Act; and<br />
(b) such privileges, immunities and powers as are defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada, not exceeding those, at the time of the passing of the Act, held, enjoyed and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom and by the members thereof.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So in theory, the Canadian House of Commons could impeach someone right now, as an inherited power from the UK HoC, but if this was tried the Commons could fall foul of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Senate would be under pressure not to try the individual impreached.</p>

<h2>The Canadian Parliament cannot “impeach” someone</h2>
<p><strong>They can, however, punish them for <a href="https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure-book-livre/en/document?sbdid=abbc077a-6dd8-4fbe-a29a-3f73554e63aa&amp;sbpid=9686d5b2-9075-4451-8082-1446f8be3c5e" rel="nofollow noreferrer">breach of privilege or contempt</a></strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p>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.[116] 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.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The last time this occurred was against a RCMP officer in 2008. The punishment imposed was simply the fact that they had been found in contempt.</p>

common-law impeachment