The Parliament
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Brief by Professor François Larocque Research Chair In
BRIEF BY PROFESSOR FRANÇOIS LAROCQUE RESEARCH CHAIR IN LANGUAGE RIGHTS UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA PRESENTED TO THE SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES AS PART OF ITS STUDY OF THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGES REFORM PROPOSAL UNVEILED ON FEBRUARY 19, 2021, BY THE MINISTER OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND OFFICIAL LANGUAGES, ENGLISH AND FRENCH: TOWARDS A SUBSTANTIVE EQUALITY OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGES IN CANADA MAY 31, 2021 Professor François Larocque Faculty of Law, Common Law Section University of Ottawa 57 Louis Pasteur Ottawa, ON K1J 6N5 Telephone: 613-562-5800, ext. 3283 Email: [email protected] 1. Thank you very much to the honourable members of the Senate Standing Committee on Official Languages (the “Committee”) for inviting me to testify and submit a brief as part of the study of the official languages reform proposal entitled French and English: Towards a Substantive Equality of Official Languages in Canada (“the reform proposal”). A) The reform proposal includes ambitious and essential measures 2. First, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages for her leadership and vision. It is, in my opinion, the most ambitious official languages reform proposal since the enactment of the Constitution Act, 1982 (“CA1982”)1 and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”),2 which enshrined the main provisions of the Official Languages Act (“OLA”)3 of 1969 in the Canadian Constitution. The last reform of the OLA was in 1988 and it is past time to modernize it to adapt it to Canada’s linguistic realities and challenges in the 21st century. 3. The Charter and the OLA proclaim that “English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada.”4 In reality, however, as reported by Statistics Canada,5 English is dominant everywhere, while French is declining, including in Quebec. -
SUBMISSION to the HOUSE of COMMONS STANDING COMMITTEE on PROC Thursday, April 23, 2020
131.194 SUBMISSION TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROC Thursday, April 23, 2020 Gregory Tardi, DJur. Executive Director, Institute of Parliamentary and Political Law Executive Editor, Journal of Parliamentary and Political Law MANDATE FOR THE PROC STUDY The House of Commons of Canada’s Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs would like to invite you to appear before the Committee in view of its study of Parliamentary Duties and the COVID-19 Pandemic. The House of Commons has instructed the committee to study ways in which members can fulfill their parliamentary duties while the House stands adjourned on account of public health concerns caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, including the temporary modification of certain procedures, sittings in alternate locations and technological solutions including a virtual Parliament Le Comité permanent de la procédure et des affaires de la Chambre des communes du Canada souhaite vous inviter à comparaître dans le cadre de son étude sur les fonctions parlementaires et la pandémie de la COVID-19. La Chambre des communes a donné instruction au comité d’entreprendre une étude sur la façon dont les députés peuvent exercer leurs fonctions parlementaires alors que la Chambre est ajournée pour des raisons de santé publique reliées à la pandémie de la COVID-19, y compris des modifications temporaires à certaines procédures, des séances en différents lieux et des solutions technologiques, dont l’idée d’un parlement virtuel. The following text was prepared by its author alone. No member of the Government of Canada or of the House of Commons of Canada was consulted. -
Challenging the Validity of an Act of Parliament: the Effect of Enrolment and Parliamentary Privilege." Osgoode Hall Law Journal 14.2 (1976) : 345-405
Osgoode Hall Law Journal Article 5 Volume 14, Number 2 (October 1976) Challenging the Validity of an Act of Parliament: The ffecE t of Enrolment and Parliamentary Privilege Katherine Swinton Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj Article Citation Information Swinton, Katherine. "Challenging the Validity of an Act of Parliament: The Effect of Enrolment and Parliamentary Privilege." Osgoode Hall Law Journal 14.2 (1976) : 345-405. http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol14/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Osgoode Hall Law Journal by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT: THE EFFECT OF ENROLMENT AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE By KATHERINE SWINTON* A. INTRODUCTION Parliamentary sovereignty has proved a topic of fascination to scholars of constitutional law for many years, as the volume of literature on the subject well demonstrates. Admittedly, the interest has been greater in Commonwealth countries other than Canada. In this country, students of constitutional law have focussed their attention on the division of powers between federal and provincial governments, since federalism has presented problems requiring immediate solution. Yet even here, the question of parliamentary sovereignty has been given consideration, and it is increasingly attracting discussion as interest increases in the patriation of the constitution and statutory protection for individual and minority rights. Within a study of parliamentary sovereignty, reference is normally made to the enrolled bill principle or rule. This precept, regarded by some as an aspect of sovereignty and by others simply as a rule of evidence, states that the parliamentary roll is conclusive - an Act passed by Parliament and en- rolled must be accepted as valid on its face and cannot be challenged in the courts on grounds of procedural irregularity. -
Parliamentary Privilege? Kinship in Canada's Parliament
Feature Parliamentary Privilege? Kinship in Canada’s Parliament In the Canadian parliamentary context, there are numerous contemporary and historical examples of dynastic politicians, but there has been curiously little academic study of this phenomenon. Many questions pertaining to kinship in parliaments remain unanswered. What is the rate of kinship in the Canadian parliament? What has been the rate of change in political kinship over time and can this change be explained? What advantages may dynastic politicians possess and what constraints do they face? This article measures the prevalence of kinship within the lower house in Canada’s federal parliament and presents data on kinship since Canada’s first parliament. After looking at economic and electoral data, it argues that change to make the electoral system more open and socially inclusive offers an explanation for the observable drop in rates of kinship over time. Finally, the paper will conclude with suggested courses for future research. Matthew Godwin Rates of Kinship since Canada’s First Parliament A further 35 Members of Parliament have had kin in parliament through marriage. Winona Grace The below analysis begins in 1867, when Canada MacInnis was married to CCF MP Angus MacInnis, was granted Dominion status from Great Britain, up who served concurrently with her father. A number to the 2011 federal election, and provides data points of female MPs in the early 20th century were related in Figure 1 of ‘Kinship by Seat Total’; which is to say, to other members through marriage, such as the the percentage of MPs who have had relatives serve Independent Conservative MP Martha Louise Black. -
Terms of Service for Members of the House of Representatives in the 117Th Congress
Terms of Service for Members of the House of Representatives in the 117th Congress October 1, 2021 The table below includes Members of the House of Representatives sorted by number of terms of service (in descending order by beginning of service) and then alphabetically by last name. Bold text denotes individuals elected in special elections. Italic text indicates non-consecutive service. Terms of Service for Representatives Last name First name Terms of State Party Congresses (inclusive) Beginning of service present service Young Don 25 AK Republican 93rd to 117th March 6, 1973 Rogers Harold 21 KY Republican 97th to 117th January 3, 1981 Smith Christopher H. 21 NJ Republican 97th to 117th January 3, 1981 Hoyer Steny H. 21 MD Democrat 97th to 117th May 19, 1981 Kaptur Marcy 20 OH Democrat 98th to 117th January 3, 1983 DeFazio Peter A. 18 OR Democrat 100th to 117th January 3, 1987 Upton Fred 18 MI Republican 100th to 117th January 3, 1987 Pelosi Nancy 18 CA Democrat 100th to 117th June 2, 1987 Pallone Frank, Jr. 18 NJ Democrat 100th to 117th November 8, 1988 Neal Richard E. 17 MA Democrat 101st to 117th January 3, 1989 100th to 103rd; 105th Price David E. 17 NC Democrat to 117th January 3, 1997 DeLauro Rosa L. 16 CT Democrat 102nd to 117th January 3, 1991 Waters Maxine 16 CA Democrat 102nd to 117th January 3, 1991 Nadler Jerrold 16 NY Democrat 102nd to 117th November 3, 1992 98th to 103rd; 108th Cooper Jim 16 TN Democrat to 117th January 3, 2003 Bishop Sanford D., Jr. -
CANADIAN POLITICS Contents
McMaster University, Department of Political Science, POLSCI 4O06/6O06 CANADIAN POLITICS Fall/Winter 2018-19 Instructor: Dr. Geoffrey Cameron Office: KTH 505 Email: [email protected] Office Hours: Friday, 12pm – 2pm Seminar: Friday, 8:30am – 11:20am Room: KTH 105 Contents Course Description .......................................................................................................... 3 Course Objectives ........................................................................................................... 3 Required Materials and Texts ......................................................................................... 3 Course Evaluation – Overview ........................................................................................ 3 Course Evaluation – Details ............................................................................................ 3 Attendance (10%) ........................................................................................................ 3 Participation (10%) ...................................................................................................... 4 Class Presentation (5%) .............................................................................................. 4 In-Class Test (10%), September 28............................................................................. 4 Research Proposal (15%), due February 8 ................................................................. 4 Research Proposal Presentation (5%) ........................................................................ -
United States Government Primer
1 United States Government Primer United States Government Primer Consortium for Ocean Leadership – 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 3 The Three Branches of Government 3 Legislative Branch 4 U S Senate 5 U S House of Representatives 5 How a Bill Becomes Law 5 Committees with Jurisdiction over Ocean Research and Policy 8 Creating and Funding Federal Agencies 9 Executive Branch 10 Federal Agencies Involved in Ocean Research and Policy 11 Judicial Branch 12 Major Ocean and Coastal Policy Legislation 13 Videos (by Crash Course on Government and Politics) 15 United States Government Primer Consortium for Ocean Leadership – 3 INTRODUCTION This primer outlines the key points of the U S political system, including the three branches of the federal government prescribed by the Constitution The legislative branch includes the Senate and the House of Representatives and is charged with drafting and approving laws (see Schoolhouse Rock video) The executive branch, including the president and his/her Cabinet, implements and enforces laws Finally, the judicial branch contains the court system that interprets and applies laws The basics of the political process are explained in the following summaries THE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT The federal government consists of three parts: legislative branch, executive branch, and judicial branch Together, they function to provide a system of lawmaking and enforcement based on a system of checks and balances The separation of powers through three different branches of government is intended to ensure that no individual, or body of government, can become too powerful This helps protect individual freedoms in addition to preventing the government from abusing its power This separation of power is described in the first three articles of the Constitution 3Branches of Government The U.S. -
Parliamentary Privilege
Patterns of change – parliamentary privilege How do the privilege provisions applying to Australia’s national parliament compare internationally? Has the curtailment of traditional provisions weakened the Parliament’s position? Bernard Wright Deputy Clerk, House of Representatives December 2007 PATTERNS OF CHANGE – PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE 2 1. Summary 1.1 The law of parliamentary privilege applying to Australia’s national parliament has undergone significant change, as has the way matters of privilege and contempt are dealt with. This paper examines the law in Australia in comparison to the provisions in other parliaments. It does so by summarising three key provisions and commenting on the law of privilege in the wider legal context. It refers to two models for the privileges and immunities which apply in contemporary parliaments, and notes the way key provisions are dealt with in each model. The paper refers to adaptations in this area of law in other parliaments and to assessments that have been made of the needs of modern legislatures. It suggests that, paradoxically, the processes that involved significant reductions in traditional provisions applying to Australia’s national parliament have strengthened the parliament. The paper ends by speculating about some of the issues that may arise in this area in the future1. 1 I am most grateful to Professor Geoff Lindell, who read through a draft of this paper and made very helpful suggestions for improvement - BW PATTERNS OF CHANGE – PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE 3 2. Privilege in the national Parliament – three key features Freedom of speech 2.1 Members of the national Parliament enjoy the privilege of freedom of speech2. -
Constructive Unamendability in Canada and the United States Richard Albert Boston College Law School, [email protected]
Boston College Law School Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School Boston College Law School Faculty Papers January 2014 Constructive Unamendability in Canada and the United States Richard Albert Boston College Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/lsfp Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Richard Albert. "Constructive Unamendability in Canada and the United States." Supreme Court Law Review (2014). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law School Faculty Papers by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Constructive Unamendability in Canada and the United States Richard Albert* I. INTRODUCTION The Canadian and United States Constitutions are unique among the constitutions of the world. Partly written and partly unwritten,1 the Constitution of Canada traces its beginnings to a British colonial statute.2 Still today, the patriated Constitution of Canada remains a creation of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.3 The first principle of Canadian government is therefore the continuing though nonetheless largely ceremonial ubiquity of the Crown.4 The Constitution of Canada is also something of a structural hybrid: it authorizes judicial review yet entrenches a limited mechanism for the legislative branch to effectively overrule the Supreme Court.5 The United States Constitution is exceptional in its own right. For Alexis de Tocqueville, the Constitution was “the most perfect federal constitution that ever existed”.6 It is a rare “example of constitutional * Assistant Professor, Boston College Law School; Yale University (J.D., B.A.); Oxford University (B.C.L.); Harvard University (LL.M.). -
Unicameralism and the Indiana Constitutional Convention of 1850 Val Nolan, Jr.*
DOCUMENT UNICAMERALISM AND THE INDIANA CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1850 VAL NOLAN, JR.* Bicameralism as a principle of legislative structure was given "casual, un- questioning acceptance" in the state constitutions adopted in the nineteenth century, states Willard Hurst in his recent study of main trends in the insti- tutional development of American law.1 Occasioning only mild and sporadic interest in the states in the post-Revolutionary period,2 problems of legislative * A.B. 1941, Indiana University; J.D. 1949; Assistant Professor of Law, Indiana Uni- versity School of Law. 1. HURST, THE GROWTH OF AMERICAN LAW, THE LAW MAKERS 88 (1950). "O 1ur two-chambered legislatures . were adopted mainly by default." Id. at 140. During this same period and by 1840 many city councils, unicameral in colonial days, became bicameral, the result of easy analogy to state governmental forms. The trend was reversed, and since 1900 most cities have come to use one chamber. MACDONALD, AmER- ICAN CITY GOVERNMENT AND ADMINISTRATION 49, 58, 169 (4th ed. 1946); MUNRO, MUNICIPAL GOVERN-MENT AND ADMINISTRATION C. XVIII (1930). 2. "[T]he [American] political theory of a second chamber was first formulated in the constitutional convention held in Philadelphia in 1787 and more systematically developed later in the Federalist." Carroll, The Background of Unicameralisnl and Bicameralism, in UNICAMERAL LEGISLATURES, THE ELEVENTH ANNUAL DEBATE HAND- BOOK, 1937-38, 42 (Aly ed. 1938). The legislature of the confederation was unicameral. ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION, V. Early American proponents of a bicameral legislature founded their arguments on theoretical grounds. Some, like John Adams, advocated a second state legislative house to represent property and wealth. -
Parliamentary Privilege, Article 9 of the Bill of Rights and Admissibility: What Use Can Be Made of Parliamentary Materials in Litigation?
Parliamentary privilege, Article 9 of the Bill of Rights and admissibility: What use can be made of Parliamentary materials in litigation? I. INTRODUCTION 1. As the Court of Appeal observed recently, “…it has become relatively commonplace in public law proceedings for every last word spoken or written in Parliament to be placed before the court. In particular, debates are relied upon extensively when they should not be and, furthermore, the conclusions of select committees are prayed in aid with the court being asked to “approve” them. For the reasons summarised by Stanley Burnton J in his judgment in Office of Government Commerce v Information Comr (Attorney General intervening) [2010] QB 98, paras 46–48, that should not happen”: R (Reilly) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2017] QB 657 at ¶109. 2. The reason that Parliamentary materials should not be used in this way is, of course, Parliamentary privilege. There are two distinct aspects to this: Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689; and a wider principle known as the “exclusive cognisance” privilege. The former is statutory, whereas the latter is a feature of the common law. Article 9 cannot be waived even by Parliamentary resolution, but the exclusive cognisance principle can be: R v Chaytor [2011] 1 AC 684 at ¶¶61, 63, 68 per Lord Phillips and ¶130-131 per Lord Clarke. 3. This paper summarises the law in relation to both aspects of Parliamentary privilege (Sections II and III), and then discusses the resulting practical constraints in relying upon Parliamentary material in judicial review and other public law proceedings (Section IV). -
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DELEGATION for RELATIONS with CANADA (16 Members)
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DELEGATION FOR RELATIONS WITH CANADA (16 members) Chairmen: 2002-2004 Mr Willy DE CLERCQ (ELDR, Belgium) 1999-2001 Mr Robert STURDY (PPE, United Kingdom) 1997-1999 Mr Pietro Antonio DI PRIMA (PPE, Italy) 1995-1996 Mr Georges BERTHU (EDN, France) 1994-1995 Mr James GOLDSMITH (EDN, France) 1993-1994 Mr Jean-Thomas NORDMANN (LDR, France) 1992-1993 Mr Charles BAUR (LDR, France) 1989-1992 Mr Gijs de VRIES (LDR, Netherlands) 1987-1989 Mr Roberto COSTANZO (PPE, Italy) 1984-1987 Mrs Eva GREDAL (PSE, Denmark) 1979-1984 Sir James SCOTT-HOPKINS (ED, United Kingdom) The origins of interparliamentary relations between the European Parliament and the Canadian Parliament date back to 1973. Since then a total of 25 interparliamentary meetings have taken place between delegations of the European and the Canadian Parliament. Interparliamentary meetings since the first direct elections of the European Parliament in June 1979: - 27th meeting 26 October - 1 November 2004 Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal - 26th meeting 25-26 November 2002 Brussels - 25th meeting 7-16 October 2001 Vancouver, Saskatoon, Toronto, Ottawa - 24th meeting 21-24 March 2000 Brussels - 23rd meeting 28 September-2 October 1998 Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto - 22nd meeting 21-23 March 1995 Brussels - 21st meeting 13-18 February 1994 Ottawa, Vancouver (BC) - 20th meeting 8-12 June 1992 Strasbourg, Picardy - 19th meeting 19-26 May 1991 Ottawa, Victoria (BC), Whitehorse - 18th meeting 23-25 April 1990 Brussels, Amsterdam - 17th meeting 1-5 May 1989 London (Ontario) - 16th meeting 23-26 May 1988 Naples - 15th meeting 19-25 September 1987 Banff (Alberta) - 14th meeting 22-26 September 1986 Luxembourg - 13th meeting 2-6 June 1985 Quebec, Ottawa - 12th meeting 25-30 March 1984 Strasbourg - 11th meeting 7-11 May 1983 St.