Suchergebnisse

This article examines the Senate's role in the legislative process, traditionally described as providing sober second thought. Data on the Senate's treatment of bills already approved by the House of Commons were compiled and studied for the period 1997 to 2015 to reveal: how many Commons bill were amended by the Senate; how many were not passed by the Senate; how long it took for the Senate to consider Commons legislation; and whether the Senate takes a more activist approach to bills that were subject to time allocation in the Commons. The results of this analysis provide several insights for suggestions to improve the Senate's role in reviewing bills passed by the lower house. Important differences are found between the treatment of government-sponsored bills and private members' bills, with the latter far less likely to make it through the Senate before the end of a session. Possible bottlenecks in the Senate's committee stage are also highlighted as an area which needs to be addressed.

Abstract.Despite the confidence convention's central part in Canadian parliamentary government, little attention has been paid to what exactly constitutes a vote of confidence. This uncertainty was highlighted in May 2005, when the opposition parties in the House of Commons passed a motion which they claimed was a confidence motion but the government did not. This paper examines the episode, and the motion at the heart of the controversy, to determine whether it should have been considered a confidence vote. Historical precedents from 1926 to 2005 provide the context for the analysis and conclusions about what signifies a test of confidence.Résumé.Malgré le rôle central de la convention de confiance dans le système parlementaire canadien, peu d'attention a été accordée à définir ce que constitue exactement un vote de confiance. Cette imprécision a été mise en évidence en mai 2005 lors du vote officiel sur une motion contre le gouvernement, lorsqu'il y a eu désaccord sur ce qui représentait une " défaite " du gouvernement dans la législature. Cet article examine les événements autour de cette motion, afin de déterminer si cette dernière a réellement constitué un vote de confiance. Quelques conclusions concernant ce que signifie un test de confiance sont tirées à partir d'une analyse des précédents historiques de 1926 à 2005.

Steps Toward Making Every Vote Count: Electoral System Reform in
Canada and its Provinces, Henry Milner, ed., Peterborough: Broadview,
2004, pp. 319.After some decades of a principally academic debate in Canada,
electoral reform has become a topic of current political discussion and
even, in some cases, concrete action. Henry Milner's Steps Toward
Making Every Vote Count is a very useful follow-up to the widely read
Making Every Vote Count (Peterborough: Broadview Press, 1999).
While the focus remains on trying to make the case that electoral reform
is indeed necessary in Canada, the emphasis lies more on assessing the
changes that are already under way. With five provinces directly engaged
in electoral reform, this book provides a very welcome collection of
essays to deepen our understanding of the subject.

AbstractA traditional focus on the collective, institutional operation of the Supreme Court of Canada has obscured the practical impact on the Charter of Rights of the personal views held by the individual members of the Court. A study of all the Charter cases decided by the Supreme Court from 1983 to 1989 reveals a profound divergence of opinions within the Court. The differences are seen not only in each judge's overall support for Charter claims but also in the patterns of agreement between bilateral pairings of judges who have heard the same cases. The use of subsets of judges to sit on panels to hear Charter cases has meant that both the outcome of Charter cases and the content of our rights have depended to a large extent upon which judges happened to sit on the panels that heard the cases.

AbstractThis article argues that the traditional views of constitutional conventions have failed to illuminate the variety among this important group of constitutional rules. A fresh examination of conventional rules explains how they may vary in precision, acceptance and importance to basic constitutional principles and processes. A hierarchical ordering of five types of constitutional rules is proposed as a replacement for the simple dichotomy between usage and convention that is currently accepted. The implications of such an ordering, which reach beyond mere analytic classification, are then discussed.

ABSTRACT. THIS ARTICLE ARGUES THAT THE TRADITIONAL VIEWS OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS HAVE FAILED TO ILLUMINATE THE VARIETY AMONG THIS IMPORTANT GROUP OF CONSTITUTIONAL RULES. A FRESH EXAMINATION OF CONVENTIONAL RULES EXPLAINS HOW THEY MAY VARY IN PRECISION, ACCEPTANCE AND IMPORTANCE TO BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES AND PROCESSES. A HIERARCHIAL ORDERING OF FIVE TYPES OF CONSTITUTIONAL RULES IS PROPOSED AS A REPLACEMENT FOR THE SIMPLE DICHOTOMY BETWEEN USAGE AND CONVENTION THAT IS CURRENTLY ACCEPTED. THE IMPLICATIONS OF SUCH AN ORDERING, WHICH REACH BEYOND MERE ANALYTIC CLASSIFICATION, ARE THEN DISCUSSED.