DOCSLIB.ORG

Document of Jurisprudence Concerning Language Rights Protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom LRSP – Language Rights Support Program

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Document of Jurisprudence Concerning Language Rights Protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom LRSP – Language Rights Support Program Document of jurisprudence concerning language rights protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom LRSP – Language Rights Support Program Olivier Nguyen DATE : JANUARY 21, 2013 It should be noted that legal research was conducted by the date of 18 January 2013. Document of Reported Decisions - LRSP Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................1 1 – The fourth constitutional principal: The protection of minorities ...............................................................1 Lalonde v Ontario (Commission de restructuration des services de santé) (2001), 56 OR (3d) 505, [2001] OJ No 4768 (Ont CA) Facta : The Commissionner of Official Languages ....................................................................................... 1 Baie d'Urfé (Ville) v Québec (Procureur général) (2001), [2001] JQ No 4821, (Qc CA) [Reported decision only available in French]. ................................................................................................................................................ 4 Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217. ............................................................................................ 7 2 - Section 16 of the Charter – Official Languages of Canada ............................................................................7 A. Subsection 16(1): Official Languages of Canada ............................................................................................7 R v Schneider (2004), 2004 NSCA 151. ................................................................................................................... 8 R v MacKenzie (2004), 2004 NSCA 10. ................................................................................................................... 8 Poulin v Canada (Attorney General), 2004 CF 1132. ........................................................................................... 11 R v Beaulac, [1999] 1 SCR 768. ............................................................................................................................ 11 B. Subsection 16(2): Official Languages of New Brunswick ............................................................................15 Charlebois v. Saint John (City), [2005] 3 SCR 563, 2005 SCC 74 ........................................................................ 16 Charlebois v Mowat and The City of Moncton (2001), 2001 NBCA 117. .............................................................. 18 C. Subsection 16(3): Advancement of status and use.........................................................................................23 R v Kapp, [2008] 2 SCR 483, 2008 SCC 41 ........................................................................................................... 23 Charlebois v. Saint John (City), [2005] 3 SCR 563, 2005 SCC 74 ........................................................................ 24 Charlebois v Mowat and The City of Moncton (2001), 2001 NBCA 117. .............................................................. 25 Lalonde v Ontario (Commission de restructuration des services de santé) (2001), 56 OR (3d) 505, [2001] OJ No 4768 (Ont CA) Facta : The Commissionner of Official Languages ..................................................................................... 26 Baie d'Urfé (Ville) v Québec (Procureur général) (2001), [2001] JQ No 4821, (Qc CA) [Reported decision only available in French]. .............................................................................................................................................. 28 R v Entreprises WFH ltée, [2001] RJQ 2557, [2001] JQ no 5021 (Qc CA) [Judgement only available in French]. ................................................................................................................................................................................ 29 Société des Acadiens v Association of Parents, [1986] 1 SCR 549 ........................................................................ 30 Jones v. A.G. of New Brunswick, [1975] 2 SCR 182 .............................................................................................. 30 3 - Section 17 of the Charter – Official Languages of Canada ..........................................................................33 A. Subsection 17(1): Proceedings of Parliament ................................................................................................33 Knopf v Canada (Speaker of the House of Commons), 2007 FCA 308, [2007] F.C.J. No. 1474 ........................... 33 New Brunswick Broadcasting Co v Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly), [1993] 1 SCR 319 ........... 34 Société des Acadiens v Association of Parents, [1986] 1 SCR 549 ........................................................................ 36 MacDonald v City of Montreal, [1986] 1 SCR 460 ............................................................................................... 37 B. Subsection 17(2): Proceedings of New Brunswick legislature ......................................................................38 Charlebois v Mowat and The City of Moncton (2001), 2001 NBCA 117. .............................................................. 38 4 - Section 18 of the Charter – Official Languages of Canada ..........................................................................40 A. Subsection 18(1): Parliamentary statutes and records ...................................................................................40 R v Gibbs, 2001 BCPC 361 .................................................................................................................................... 40 New Brunswick Broadcasting Co v Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly), [1993] 1 SCR 319 ........... 41 Société des Acadiens v Association of Parents, [1986] 1 SCR 549 ........................................................................ 43 B. Subsection 18(2): New Brunswick statutes and records ................................................................................43 Charlebois v Mowat and The City of Moncton (2001), 2001 NBCA 117. .............................................................. 44 5 - Section 19 of the Charter – Official Languages of Canada ..........................................................................48 A. Subsection 19(1): Proceedings in courts established by Parliament ..............................................................48 B. Subsection 19(2): Proceedings in New Brunswick courts .............................................................................48 Société des Acadiens v Association of Parents, [1986] 1 SCR 549 ........................................................................ 48 ii 6 - Section 20 of the Charter – Official Languages of Canada ..........................................................................54 A. Subsection 20(1): Communications by public with federal institutions ........................................................54 DesRochers v. Canada (Industry), 2009 SCC 8, [2009] 1 SCR 194 - Facta : The Commissioner of Official Languages... 55 Knopf v Canada (Speaker of the House of Commons), 2007 FCA 308, [2007] F.C.J. No. 1474 .......................... 58 Charlebois v. Saint John (City), [2005] 3 SCR 563, 2005 SCC 74 ........................................................................ 59 R v Doucet, 2004 FC 1444. .................................................................................................................................... 60 R v Gibbs, 2001 BCPC 361. ................................................................................................................................... 63 Société des Acadiens v Association of Parents, [1986] 1 SCR 549 ........................................................................ 64 B. Subsection 20(2): Communications by public with New Brunswick institutions .........................................65 R v Losier, 2011 NBCA 102 .................................................................................................................................. 65 Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick Inc. v. Canada, [2008] 1 SCR 383, 2008 SCC 15 .. 69 Gautreau v New Brunswick, 101 NBR (2d) 1. ....................................................................................................... 73 iii Document of Reported Decisions Introduction This document of reported decisions was created to help lawyers to answer legal questions affecting the language rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”). You will find in this document a brief summary and the relevant paragraphs of the reported decisions that are interpreting and applying the provisions of the Charter concerning language rights and the principle of the protection of minorities which is the fourth constitutional principle recognized in Reference re Secession of Quebec. It is important to note that this document does not constitute a legal opinion and that test cases eligible for Language Rights Support Program (LRSP) funding are determined by the LRSP Expert Panel. 1 – The fourth constitutional principal: The protection of minorities In the jurisprudence, the relevant cases dealing with language rights and the fourth constitutional principle of the protection of minorities are: Lalonde v Ontario (Commission de restructuration des services de santé) (2001), 56 OR
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Social Context Education Project (SCEP) Was a Special Project of the National Judicial Institute Between 1996-2003
    NATIONAL JUDICIAL INSTITUTE, CANADA THE SOCIAL CONTEXT EDUCATION PROJECT SUMMARY The Social Context Education Project (SCEP) was a special project of the National Judicial Institute between 1996-2003. The program had two phases: • Phase I concentrated on full-court education seminars in every province of Canada. These seminars were designed to create a common base of information and understanding of the relevance and applicability of social context among all judges in Canada. Over 20 programs were held involving over 1000 judges. • Phase II focused on developed skilled judicial education leaders in this area through an intensive program of judicial faculty development. Curriculum development was another focus of Phase II. Since 2003, social context has been integrated as a regular component of NJI work through adoption of the guiding principle that judicial education should always be ‘three dimensional’ (substantive law, skills development and social context awareness) and designation of a member of the senior management team responsible for social context integration. The Social Context Education Program: • Built on work initiated in Canada by the Western Judicial Education Centre • Was mandated by the Canadian Judicial Council and supported by Chief Judges. • Built from the premise that understanding social context and integrating it into judicial processes and judicial decision-making is mandated by law. • Was developed in synergy with jurisprudential developments explicitly recognizing the legitimacy of contextual inquiry in judicial decision-making. • Has proceeded on the basis that social context education is a long-term process not an inoculation. The long-term goal is integration of social context into all forms of judicial education as an automatic part of the landscape.
    [Show full text]
  • Reforming the Supreme Court Appointment Process, 2004-2014: a 10-Year Democratic Audit 2014 Canliidocs 33319 Adam M
    The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference Volume 67 (2014) Article 4 Reforming the Supreme Court Appointment Process, 2004-2014: A 10-Year Democratic Audit 2014 CanLIIDocs 33319 Adam M. Dodek Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Citation Information Dodek, Adam M.. "Reforming the Supreme Court Appointment Process, 2004-2014: A 10-Year Democratic Audit." The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 67. (2014). http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol67/iss1/4 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 The uS preme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. Reforming the Supreme Court Appointment Process, 2004-2014: A 10-Year Democratic Audit* Adam M. Dodek** 2014 CanLIIDocs 33319 The way in which Justice Rothstein was appointed marks an historic change in how we appoint judges in this country. It brought unprecedented openness and accountability to the process. The hearings allowed Canadians to get to know Justice Rothstein through their members of Parliament in a way that was not previously possible.1 — The Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper, PC [J]udicial appointments … [are] a critical part of the administration of justice in Canada … This is a legacy issue, and it will live on long after those who have the temporary stewardship of this position are no longer there.
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of Stare Decisis on Judicial Decision-Making
    University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor Electronic Theses and Dissertations Theses, Dissertations, and Major Papers 2005 Taking precedents seriously: The influence of stare decisis on judicial decision-making. Mark Chalmers University of Windsor Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/etd Recommended Citation Chalmers, Mark, "Taking precedents seriously: The influence of stare decisis on judicial decision-making." (2005). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 3718. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/etd/3718 This online database contains the full-text of PhD dissertations and Masters’ theses of University of Windsor students from 1954 forward. These documents are made available for personal study and research purposes only, in accordance with the Canadian Copyright Act and the Creative Commons license—CC BY-NC-ND (Attribution, Non-Commercial, No Derivative Works). Under this license, works must always be attributed to the copyright holder (original author), cannot be used for any commercial purposes, and may not be altered. Any other use would require the permission of the copyright holder. Students may inquire about withdrawing their dissertation and/or thesis from this database. For additional inquiries, please contact the repository administrator via email ([email protected]) or by telephone at 519-253-3000ext. 3208. TAKING PRECEDENTS SERIOUSLY: THE INFLUENCE OF STARE DECISIS ON JUDICIAL DECISION-MAKING by Mark Chalmers A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research through Political Science in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts at the University of Windsor Windsor, Ontario, Canada 2005 © 2005 Mark Chalmers Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
    [Show full text]
  • Gosselin V. Que´Bec (Attorney General)
    Gosselin v. Que´bec (Attorney General) Gwen Brodsky, Rachel Cox, Shelagh Day and Kate Stephenson Authors’ Note Some of the authors of this judgment have a history with Gosselin v. Quebec (Attorney General) that pre-dates the creation of the Women’s Court of Canada. Rachel Cox and Gwen Brodsky were co-counsel to the National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL) in its 2001 intervention in Gosselin at the Supreme Court of Canada. Shelagh Day was an advisor to NAWL’s legal team in that litigation. Kate Stephenson was not directly involved in the Gosselin case, but her work as a leading anti-poverty litigator makes her intimately familiar with the reasoning and outcome. Each of the authors has been affected by the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision. Rachel Cox, who lived in Montre´ al in the 1980s when the Social Aid Regulation reduced young people’s welfare benefit by two-thirds, felt keenly the gulf between the reality of the time and the Supreme Court of Canada’s characterization of the scheme as ‘‘an affirmation of [young people’s] potential’’ and dignity. For those living in Que´ bec in the 1980s, the reason for the reduced rate was clear: to save the government money. Even if people disagreed about whether that was right or wrong, no one believed at the time that the government had designed the scheme in a sincere effort to help young people on welfare. There was a recession and somebody had to pay. Simply put, the court case was about whether or not it was legal for the government to make already very poor welfare recipients pay so much of the cost.
    [Show full text]
  • Poverty Law and Society Series W
    Poverty Law and Society Series W. Wesley Pue, General Editor The Law and Society Series explores law as a socially embedded phenom- enon. It is premised on the understanding that the conventional division of law from society creates false dichotomies in thinking, scholarship, educational practice, and social life. Books in the series treat law and society as mutually constitutive and seek to bridge scholarship emerging from interdisciplinary engagement of law with disciplines such as politics, social theory, history, political economy, and gender studies. A list of the titles in this series is available at http://www.ubcpress.ca/books/ series_law.html Edited by Margot Young, Susan B. Boyd, Gwen Brodsky, and Shelagh Day Poverty: Rights, Social Citizenship, and Legal Activism © UBC Press 2007 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without prior written permission of the publisher, or, in Canada, in the case of photocopying or other reprographic copying, a licence from Access Copyright (Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency), www.accesscopyright.ca. 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 5 4 3 2 1 Printed in Canada on ancient-forest-free paper (100% post-consumer recycled) that is processed chlorine- and acid-free, with vegetable-based inks. Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Poverty : rights, social citizenship, and legal activism / edited by Margot Young [et al.]. (Law and Society, ISSN 1496-4953) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-7748-1287-0 1. Public welfare – Law and legislation – Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • 37524 in the Supreme Court of Canada (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal for British Columbia)
    SCC Court File No: 37524 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA) B E T W E E N: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA APPELLANT (Appellant) - and - PHILIP MORRIS INTERNATIONAL, INC. RESPONDENT (Respondent) MOTION RECORD OF SAMUELSON-GLUSHKO CANADIAN INTERNET POLICY AND PUBLIC INTEREST CLINIC (Motion for leave to intervene) Pursuant to Rules 47 and 55 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section Common Law Section 57 Louis Pasteur Street 57 Louis Pasteur Street Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5 Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5 David Fewer David Fewer Tel: (613) 562-5800 x 2558 Tel: (613) 562-5800 x 2558 Fax: (613) 562-5417 Fax: (613) 562-5417 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Proposed Intervener Agent for the Proposed Intervener TO: THE REGISTRAR COPY TO: SISKINDS LLP SUPREME ADVOCACY LLP 680 Waterloo Street 100-340 Gilmour Street PO Box 2520, Station B Ottawa, ON K2P 0R3 London, ON N6A 3V8 James D. Virtue Marie-France Major Tel: (519) 672-2121 Tel: (613) 695-8855 Ext: 102 Fax: (519) 672-6065 Fax: (613) 695-8580 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Appellant, Agent for the Appellant, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia British Columbia AND TO: McCARTHY TÉTRAULT LLP GOWLING WLG (CANADA) LLP Suite 2400, 745 Thurlow Street 160 Elgin Street, Suite 2600 Vancouver, BC, V6E 0C5 Ottawa, ON, K1P 1C3 Michael A.
    [Show full text]
  • Indigenous People and Parliament P. 24 Moving Forward Together
    Canadian eview V olume 39, No. 2 Moving Forward Together: Indigenous People and Parliament p. 24 The Mace currently in use in the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan was made in 1906 and used for the first time in March of that year at the opening of the First Session of the First Legislative Assembly. Purchased from Ryrie Bros. Ltd. of Toronto at a cost of $340.00, it is made of heavy gold-plated brass and is about four feet long. The head consists of a Royal Crown with the arches surmounted by a Maltese cross and bears the Royal Coat-of-Arms on the top indicating the Royal Authority. Each side is decorated with a sheaf of wheat, representing the province’s agricultural wealth, a beaver representing Canada and the monogram E.R. VII, representing the sovereign at the time, Edward VII. The shaft and base are ornamented with a shamrock, thistle and rose intertwined. A Latin inscription around the Royal Coat of Arms reads in English, “Edward the Seventh, by the Grace of God of British Isles and Lands beyond the sea which are under British rule, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India”. Monique Lovett Manager of Interparliamentary Relations and Protocol Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan Courtesy of British Columbia Legislative Library Stick Talking BC Legislature, The Canadian Parliamentary Review was founded in 1978 to inform Canadian legislators about activities of the federal, provincial and territorial branches of the Canadian Region of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and to promote the study of and interest in Canadian parliamentary institutions.
    [Show full text]
  • Monday, March 4, 1996
    CANADA VOLUME 133 S NUMBER 005 S 2nd SESSION S 35th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Monday, March 4, 1996 Speaker: The Honourable Gilbert Parent CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) CORRIGENDUM In the column at left on page 188 of Hansard, Friday March 1, 1996, under ``Government Business'', the mention should read as follows: MOTION NO. 1ĊNOTICE OF MOTION FOR CLOSURE Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, concerning the debate on government Motion No. 1, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the House, I will move that debate be not further adjourned. The House of Commons Debates and the Proceedings of Committee evidence are accessible on the Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 211 HOUSE OF COMMONS Monday, March 4, 1996 The House met at 11 a.m. officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as contempt even though there is no precedent for the offence. It is therefore impossible to list every act _______________ which might be considered to amount to a contempt, the power to punish for such an offence being of its nature discretionary. Nevertheless, certain broad principles may be deduced from a review of the kinds of misconduct which in the past either Prayers House has punished as a contempt. _______________ On October 29, 1980 a Speaker of this House had this to say: [English] The dimension of contempt of Parliament is such that the House will not be constrained in finding a breach of privileges of members, or of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • 50Th Canadian Regional CPA Conference
    50th Canadian Regional CPA Conference Gary Levy The Fiftieth Conference of the Canadian Region, Commonwealth Parliamentary Association takes place in Québec City July 15-21, 2012. This article traces the evolution of the Canadian Region with particular emphasis on previous conferences organized by the Québec Branch. ccording to Ian Imrie, former Secretary- Many provincial branches of CPA existed in name Treasurer of the Canadian Region, the rationale only but the idea of a permanent Canadian association Afor a meeting of Canadian representatives appealed to Speaker Michener. within the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association We can, I think, strengthen the Canadian was partly to help legislators develop an understanding Federation by these conferences. I am sure that of the parliamentary process. Also, this meeting, though it brings all too few people from the western provinces to the Maritimes, If we are to have a united country it is important demonstrates the value of it. I am sure that that elected members from one part of the country the other members from the West, who have visit other areas and gain an appreciation of the not visited Halifax would say that today their problems and challenges of their fellow citizens. I understanding of the Canadian Federation do not think I ever attended a conference, would be greatly helped by conferences held including those in Ottawa, where there were first in the East, then in the West and the Centre.2 not a number of legislators visiting that part of the country for the first time. One should not Premier Stanfield wanted to know more about what underestimate the value of such experiences.1 was going on in other legislatures.
    [Show full text]
  • Michel Bastarache's Language Rights Legacy
    The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference Volume 47 (2009) Article 13 Michel Bastarache’s Language Rights Legacy Michel Y. Hélie Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Citation Information Hélie, Michel Y.. "Michel Bastarache’s Language Rights Legacy." The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 47. (2009). http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol47/iss1/13 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 The uS preme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. Michel Bastarache’s Language Rights Legacy Michel Y. Hélie I. CONQUEST TO CONFEDERATION On a battlefield almost 250 years ago, General Wolfe faced the Marquis de Montcalm and the dream of une Amérique française died. La Nouvelle-France, even then commonly known as Canada, became a British colony and the status of the language of Molière became uncertain, threatened and the source of conflict ever since. The constitutional status of the French language today in Canada, the direction in which it is headed, and the influence the Honourable Michel Bastarache has exerted over these issues is the subject of this paper. Although the intention of the British Empire to assimilate its newest acquisition is beyond doubt, the French fact, that is, the overwhelming majority of French-speaking inhabitants north of the American colonies, presented a significant challenge to achieving this goal.
    [Show full text]
  • Francophone Minority Communities: the Last Constitutional Standard-Bearers of Trudeau’S Language Regime Emmanuelle Richez
    Document généré le 30 sept. 2021 07:20 International Journal of Canadian Studies Revue internationale d’études canadiennes Francophone Minority Communities: The Last Constitutional Standard-Bearers of Trudeau’s Language Regime Emmanuelle Richez Francophonies, Interculturality, Cultures and Strategies Résumé de l'article Francophonies, interculturalité, cultures et stratégies Les communautés francophones et Acadiennes du Canada (CFAC) ont été Numéro 45-46, 2012 jusqu’à présent les principaux porte-étendards du régime linguistique de Pierre Elliott Trudeau sur le plan constitutionnel, en faisant la promotion d’un URI : https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1009893ar bilinguisme non-territorialisé par le biais de la revue judiciaire. Toutefois, ce DOI : https://doi.org/10.7202/1009893ar régime s’effrite lentement et ne peut plus satisfaire les besoins des CFAC. Premièrement, cet article explique en quoi les droits des minorités linguistiques étaient la pierre angulaire du projet politique de Trudeau et Aller au sommaire du numéro comment une interdépendance idéologique s’est installée entre ce dernier et les CFAC. Deuxièmement, l’article décrit comment le contexte institutionnel d’après 1982 a grandement facilité l’atteinte des objectifs constitutionnels des Éditeur(s) CFAC. Troisièmement, il évalue dans quelle mesure leurs objectifs ont été satisfaits, en faisant un survol de la jurisprudence de la Cour Suprême basée Conseil international d’études canadiennes sur la Charte dans le domaine des droits des minorités francophones, ainsi que de ses conséquences politiques. Enfin, l’article conclue que les CFAC ont épuisé ISSN le potentiel du régime linguistique de Trudeau et qu’elles doivent désormais le 1180-3991 (imprimé) dépasser, si elles veulent assurer leur épanouissement futur.
    [Show full text]
  • Oh, Oh! Modeling Parliamentary Interruptions in Canada, 1926-2015
    Oh, oh! Modeling Parliamentary Interruptions in Canada, 1926-2015 Tanya Whyte Department of Political Science, University of Toronto Presented at Canadian Political Science Association Annual Conference Ryerson University, Toronto, May 27-June 2, 2017 Abstract Literature on the Canadian "democratic deficit" argues that parliamentary decorum in the Canadian House of Commons, including disruptive be- haviours like heckling and cheering, has been worsening over recent decades. Such questions of long-term change in parliamentary behaviour are amenable to text as data methods, a rapidly emerging field in quantitative social sci- ence. This analysis uses the Lipad dataset, a new machine-readable digi- tization of the complete text of the Canadian House of Commons Debates (Hansard), to investigate disruptive behaviour (measured via parliamentary interruptions) in the House of Commons from 1926-2015. Five hypotheses are tested using a multinomial logit model: that interruptions have increased in probability over time; that ministers are likeliest and backbenchers least likeliest to be interrupted; that women MPs are more likely to be interrupted; and that interruptions are more common under majority government condi- tions. Preliminary version: Please do not cite or distribute until a final version is posted. Thanks to Arthur Spirling for his advice and feedback. PARLIAMENTARY INTERRUPTIONS IN CANADA, 1926-2015 2 Introduction The conduct of elected representatives in the House of Commons has been a fre- quent target of criticism in the Canadian "democratic deficit" literature. One root of voter malaise in Canada and in other Westminster-style democracies, it is argued, is public re- pugnance for adversarial and crude political debate, particularly during Question Period (Docherty, 2005; Grisdale, 2011).
    [Show full text]