Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations
Committee
Eleventh Report to Parliament on Subordinate
Legislation
Annual Report
concerning
Statutory Rules Series 1998
Ordered to be Printed
By Authority. Government Printer for the State of Victoria
May 1999
No. 43 Session 1999
In June 1998, a Subcommittee of the Scrutiny of Acts and
Regulations Committee travelled to Canada, France, Belgium and England. The Subcommittee
comprised:–
· Mr Murray Thompson, MP, Chairman of the Subordinate
Legislation Subcommittee of Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee and of this
delegation;
· The Honourable Maree Luckins, MLC, Chair of the Redundant Legislation Subcommittee;
· Mr Carlo Carli, MP; and
· Mr Bob Cameron, MP.
The Research Officer and Legal Adviser to the Subordinate
Legislation Subcommittee, Ms Tanya Coleman, accompanied the Members to Canada and France.
Mr Andrew Homer, Senior Legal Adviser, accompanied the Members in Belgium and England.
The Subcommittee undertook travel to investigate 3 key
areas of importance to the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee. These are:–
1. The review of regulations;
2. The scrutiny of national schemes of legislation; and
3. The scrutiny of human rights in legislation.
While in Canada, the Subcommittee visited two Parliaments.
Firstly, it visited the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Saskatchewan in Regina,
Saskatchewan. It spent four days in Regina. It then paid a visit to the Senate and House
of Commons of the Parliament of Canada in Ottawa, Ontario. The Subcommittee spent its last
three days in Canada in Ottawa. In both these cities, the Members paid calls upon senior
public servants.
The Subcommittee wishes to place on the record its
appreciation of all those Canadians whom it met and to acknowledge the assistance it
received in planning and arranging the many appointments it made while there.
Saskatchewan ranks fifth in land area of the ten provinces
in Canada, occupying 6.5% of the total Canadian landmass. It has over 1,000,000 people,
with most of these living in Saskatchewan's cities. Saskatchewan became a province in
1905. It has a legislature of 58 members with the present government being formed by the
New Democratic Party. Under section 4 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
Saskatchewan citizens are entitled to elect a new Legislative Assembly at least every five
years.
Saskatchewan is a progressive province, but it is a small
one and some of its initiatives are not heard about because of its size.
The Subcommittee was interested to investigate the
following matters:–
· The conduct of the Special Committee on Regulations of the Legislative Assembly of
Saskatchewan;
· The regulatory regime in Saskatchewan including regulatory impact assessment; and
· The impact of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on a province such as Saskatchewan.
The Special Committee on Regulations was first set up in
1963. Its Terms of Reference51 cover similar
matters to those of the Victorian Subordinate Legislation Subcommittee. There are nine
Members on the Committee and it has three staff members. The procedures of the Committee
are comparable to those of the Subordinate Legislation Subcommittee, with Legal Counsel
first reviewing the regulations and the Committee deliberating on this advice. Legal
Counsel has specific terms of reference and his own supporting checklist to ensure a
methodical review of the regulations and bylaws.
Then there might be correspondence with the departmental
officials or the minister responsible for the regulations. Sometimes the issues carry over
several years. The committee may hear witnesses from departments, professional
associations or from the public.
In addition the Special Committee is empowered to review
the bylaws of professional associations to determine whether or not they are "in any
way prejudicial to the public interest". There are 45 professional and occupational
groups that have self-governing legislation. Each Act creates a governing body for the
particular profession or occupation which then delegates to that body the power to
regulate the activities and affairs of the professional or occupational group.
Bylaws/rules/regulations are required to be tabled in the Legislature, and if found by the
Special Committee to be beyond power or prejudicial to the public interest, cease to be
effective and are deemed to be revoked.
The Victorian delegation sat in on a meeting of the
Special Committee and observed its conduct.
The Chief Crown Counsel introduced members to the
treatment of regulations in Saskatchewan. He said:
In 1989 the Regulations Act of Saskatchewan was changed to
adopt the "key word" test. This is that if the statute says a minister may make
a regulation then any regulation made under the statute falls for review under the
Regulations Act.
The theory behind the key word test is that it gives
parliamentarians the opportunity to be alerted as a Bill is going through the Assembly to
what kinds of decisions are going to be made by regulation.
There are approximately 735 regulations in Saskatchewan.
586 of these are what are called revised regulations, or regulations which have been made
since 1980. These are either new regulations dealing with entirely new subject matter or
rewrites of pre-1980 regulations. There are approximately 149 unrevised regulations.
There are approximately 145 regulations made each year,
constituting about 750 pages in the Saskatchewan Gazette.
Saskatchewan has an elaborate administrative system of
preparing, reviewing and enacting regulations. The objective of the system is to ensure
that all regulations are legally sound or reflective of sound policy and are written in an
understandable and clear manner.
When a regulation is proposed the department must comply
with the Code of Regulatory Conduct. This has no legislative basis nor is it official
policy but it is something which has been adopted by several recent administrations.
The Code deals with:–
· proper consultation;
· examining non-regulatory alternatives;
· identifying potential costs and benefits;
· advance notice to sectors most effected and opportunity for input by them; and
· drafting by professional drafters.
One matter which drafters look at which has no direct
parallel in Victoria is whether the regulations are consistent with the federal Charter of
Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Code of Saskatchewan.
Saskatchewan has a regulations policy which is to cut red
tape for small and medium sized business while at the same time maintaining protection for
the public, workers and the environment. When the initiative started there were 723
regulations and at the end of May 1996 there were 615. This represents a 15% drop.
The components of the policy are:–
· to review all regulations within a 10 year period;
· to review 10% of all government regulations in each of the next 10 years; and
· to eliminate 25% of all government regulations.
The focus is to change the approach of regulators so that
they put themselves in the client's shoes and try to see what would be the impact from the
client's perspective as well as looking at the needs from the perspective of government
and the perspective of the public interest.
Keeping everyone on track takes a great deal of teaching
all players about the system. Workshopping and setting agreed goals are regular features.
One official made this comment:
But as you well know, it takes constant vigilance to
keep on top of regulations and make sure that they are used discriminately, and so that's
why a new regulatory reform initiative was introduced. The current initiative addresses
both the number of regulations and the impact of regulations as well as the burden of red
tape53.
The question now is how to sustain a principle of
regulatory review over time. Saskatchewan has not gone down the legislative route for
automatic sunsetting yet because of the serious consequences, particularly in the health
and education areas or where existing regulations govern payments of pensions and rebates.
Another consideration is the future of regulations which were brought about by negotiated
settlements. To knock these out by an automatic sunset clause might ruin trust between the
government and the relevant party.
As there is no statutory base for periodic regulation
revocation and review, it is important that departments are held responsible for ensuring
that regulations are relevant and up to date and that this becomes part of the
administration's culture. It is a matter of thinking about regulation in holistic terms
which includes budgeting and resource use. One solution that Saskatchewan is looking at is
asking departments to insert a rolling review requirement or an exact sunset date in the
individual regulations, whichever is relevant for the circumstances of the regulations.
Canada is a federal state with powers divided between the
central government and the provinces. Its constitutional base has several components. Her
Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II is Canada's formal Head of State. The Saskatchewan government
derives its authority to conduct provincial affairs from the Canadian Constitution. The
governments are co-sovereign and their powers are not transferable. The Constitution
recognises the status of both English and French as the official languages of Canada. All
legislation is prepared in both languages.
Canada's constitution dates back to the Constitution Act,
1867. Until 1982, the only way that this Act could be amended was by an Act of the British
Parliament. In 1982 Canada's constitution was patriated by the Constitution Act, 1982.
This also entrenched the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and dealt with aboriginal rights.
The then Minister of Justice (who is now Prime Minister)
said at the time:
Now, for the first time, we will have a Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms that recognizes rights for all of us, wherever we may live
in Canada.
To be sure, there has been a host of federal and
provincial laws guaranteeing some of our fundamental rights and freedoms. However, these
laws have varied from province to province, with the result that basic rights have been
unevenly protected throughout our country. Now that our rights will be written into the
Constitution, it will be a constant reminder to our political leaders that they must wield
their authority with caution and wisdom.
Canada's basic type of representative parliamentary
democracy and various court systems are like those in Australia. Constitutionally,
however, the federal government in Canada has plenary powers to make laws for the peace,
order and good government of Canada. The provincial powers are tightly defined covering
generally all matters of a merely local or private nature in a province. This is the
reverse to Australia. Some areas are shared but if there is any conflict the federal laws
are paramount. This is the same as applies in Australia.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) has provided
an additional role for the courts and an additional method for the courts to become
involved in decision making.
Canadians have different views on the value of a written
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One view, held by senior members of the Saskatchewan
Legislative Assembly and other officials, is that the Charter has expanded the role of the
judiciary as against the elected legislators. In terms of making important decisions in
the country, proponents of this view would say that the courts have clearly overtaken the
elected Parliaments. People are more litigious in Canada now, and rather than petitioning
Parliament for a change in laws, Canadians are now more likely to go to court. The role of
the Charter has been to advance individual rights at the expense of collective rights,
thus restricting the Saskatchewan Assembly from taking collective action by legislation.
The role in government of Saskatchewan's ruling National Democratic Party has been
impaired.
On the other hand, advocates of the Charter point to the
breakdown in social consensus which Canada along with most of the Western world has
experienced in the last 15 to 20 years and affirm the place of the Charter in providing a
written standard which people can refer to in terms of protecting their rights.
Drafting experts comment that the Charter has complicated
legislation greatly. Since the courts have taken such an expansive view of their powers
under the Charter it is nearly impossible to draft an Act and say that it will survive any
challenge in the courts. Dealing with Charter issues is a growth industry. It also adds a
good deal of uncertainty to the public, particularly when it comes to, for example,
organising business affairs in accordance with the law, which might change dramatically
after some unforeseen legal action.
Members of the Special Committee on Regulations from
either end of the political spectrum believed that and the attitude of the court in its
decisions had gone too far, wrongly extending the impact of the Charter.
Visiting Members learnt that in 1947 Saskatchewan was the
first Canadian province to enact a Bill of Rights. This Bill provided protection from
discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, colour and national origin. It proclaimed
such civil and political freedoms as freedom of expression, freedom of association and the
right to vote. Saskatchewan's long commitment to the protection of human rights ensured
that the focus of discussion was put centrally on the federal-provincial relationship.
The Subcommittee was in Ottawa from 17 to 19 June 1998.
The Subcommittee is grateful to the staff of the
Australian High Commission in Ottawa for its hospitality and assistance. The Subcommittee
wishes particularly to thank the High Commissioner and his wife for their welcome.
While in Ottawa, the Subcommittee spent time at the
Canadian Parliament. At the Parliament, Members had useful meetings with:–
· the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights;
· the Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations; and
· the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
Parliamentary Committees in Canada are appointed annually
and can meet all year round. Members were able to attend meetings of these Committees,
observe proceedings and ask questions of Canadian MPs or Senators. Staff members were also
in attendance and offered helpful insights.
The Subcommittee also had an informative session with the
Director General of the Research Branch of the Library of Parliament. The Research Branch
works exclusively for Parliament and has a permanent staff of 60 professionals. Some of
these are on secondment to the various Parliamentary Committees. The Branch conducts
research and provides information for Committees and Members of the Senate and the House
of Commons. The service has no partisan bias. Reports, Background Papers and Issue reviews
are prepared.
Outside the Parliament, the Subcommittee met with many
senior government officials. Discussions covered:–
· regulatory reform and management; and
· human rights law.
Members of the Subcommittee acknowledge the expertise and
insight of the officials it met and is grateful for the informative talks and
presentations made.
On several occasions, Members spoke with officials
involved with the development of regulations generally and with the failed attempt on the
part of Canada to move ahead with Regulatory Efficiency legislation. Set out below is a
thumbnail sketch history of the shifts in thinking about regulations in Canada in the past
20 years. Canada must be acknowledged for its significant contributions to the development
of thought on regulations. Material is drawn from an essay given to Members at one such
meeting55.
In July 1978, Prime Minister Trudeau asked the Economic
Council of Canada to study regulations and their impact on the Canadian Economy. The
Regulation Reference, as it became known, raised the profile of government's use of
regulation in Canada as nothing had before. This Reference has played an important role in
the development of recent thought on regulation. Twenty years on, Canada's commitment to
addressing public problems through regulation is still significant. The years have taught
administrators much and allowed for observations on overall trends and directions for
regulations.
The 20 years has seen three key initiatives or approaches
to regulation. These are:–
1. Deregulation;
2. Regulatory reform; and
3. Regulatory management.
A brief description of each of these phases is helpful to
develop a complete picture of change in regulation to date. It is exciting to be aware
that the field of regulation review is not static.
Regulation has been a cornerstone of governance in Canada
since the late 19th century when regulatory systems were set up to maintain standards in
foods and to ensure accuracy in weights and measures.
Despite this legacy – or perhaps because of it – the
growth in the administrative state after World War II led to an overuse of the regulatory
tool for all sorts of purposes. The dominant theme of the late 1970's was the failure of
regulation, which transformed into a call for deregulation as there seemed no other way
than to reduce numbers of regulations to cope with the "problem" of regulation.
There were two separate aspects – the coercive power of
regulation and the magnitude of the burden imposed on individuals and the economy by
regulations. Questions about appropriate instruments to achieve outcomes led to enthusiasm
for deregulation. Reducing red tape became a catch cry. An Office for the Reduction of
Paperburden was established! This became the Department of Small Business.
As time passed, the focus of the debate switched from
deregulation to regulatory reform. From the deregulation perspective, the problem of
regulation was a matter of quantity and reducing the amount of regulation. By contrast,
regulatory reform was concerned with the quality of regulation. Now the focus was on the
right type of regulation. The concept had been refined, allowing for a more sophisticated
discussion of government's use of regulation.
Regulatory impact analysis to confirm a need for
regulatory projects and a periodic review of regulations became two of the key tools.
The goal of the government's strategy for regulatory
reform was two-fold:–
· to reduce regulations where warranted, and
· to regulate smarter.
A high value was placed on scrutiny.
As time moved on, criticism of the regulatory impact
analysis process was heard. These processes cost a lot and were not always of a high
standard. As of the mid-1980's, cost cutting in government budgets became a more prominent
consideration. It was time to move ahead in thinking on regulations.
The present emphasis in the treatment of regulation is
that of regulation management or determining the best mix of regulatory and non-regulatory
instruments to address policy problems effectively. It looks to flexibility to keep in
step with, for instance, technological advances. It also draws from a broader palette by
extending its consideration to government-wide policy objectives as a whole. It recognises
that success depends on structural and cultural reform within government as a whole. There
was a consensus that the impact of regulation was both positive and negative.
It arose from the new managerialism which has applied
mainly private sector principles and values to the organisation and management of the
public sector.
In 1993, the OECD observed what it described as
contradictory developments - the retreat by government from direct regulation of economic
activity with, at the same time, evidence of new growth in regulation mainly in the area
of social regulation. However, from the standpoint of regulatory management, it indicates
rather a more sophisticated approach in which the axes are not more or less (which was the
deregulatory paradigm) but rather more nuanced.
Regulatory management also saw a broadening of the
regulatory impact analysis to take account of emerging methodologies such as risk
assessment and management as well as a growing awareness of various ethical factors.
Into this context stepped the proposed Regulatory
Efficiency Bill of the Canadian Parliament. This Bill was not passed because of serious
concerns expressed by Standing Committees of the Canadian Parliament. Its architects
portrayed the Bill as a response to the traditional command-and-control regulation,
suggesting that it would lower overall costs for those being regulated and accordingly
increase compliance. But those who did not support the Bill saw it as promoting
"private interest" government, jeopardising long-standing principles of the
general applicability of law and regulation.
The Subcommittee had interesting appointments with
Canadian officers of government in which the history of the Bill which was "for the
achievement of regulatory goals through alternatives to designated regulations and through
administrative agreements" (Bill C-62) was outlined. Much of this discussion has been
rehearsed already in the Discussion Paper and Report56
of the Law Reform Committee on "Regulatory Efficiency Legislation". It was,
however, most interesting to hear from its originators of the reasons behind the Bill's
development. Members also spoke with Members and Research Officers of the Standing Joint
Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations who contributed most to the demise of the Bill57. This also is outlined in the work of Victoria's
Law Reform Committee, but in brief, the key reasons for failure were to do with arguments
about the nature and importance of the Rule of Law.
Another trend and development is a growing resort to
mutual recognition and harmonisation – both within Canada and, indeed, internationally.
The growing use of voluntary codes as an alternative to traditional regulation can be seen
as another trend – that of breaking down traditional barriers between public and private
activity.
Twenty years on since the Regulatory Reference in Canada
shows that this story of regulatory change is one of looking ahead as well as looking
backwards. It seems that regulatory change is most successful in areas where citizens look
to government for leadership and often for solutions. Good regulation involves achieving
the essential goals of good governance within the parliamentary system of government.
As mentioned earlier, Saskatchewan adopted a Code of
Regulatory Conduct in 1994. This Code springs from the earlier federal developments
described above and illustrates how changes in ideas and attitudes to government
regulation have begun to have influence in the provinces. It also points to willingness of
Saskatchewan to adopt change and monitor advances in thinking about regulations.
A significant difference between Australia and Canada is
the existence in Canadian law as part of her Constitution of a Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. This Charter came into being in 1982. Having absorbed provincial comment on the
deleterious impact of the Charter, it was of great interest to Members of the Subcommittee
to hear from its supporters in the Federal Capital.
Prime Minister Jean Chretien has written about the Charter
that it is "an affirmation of the decency of our society. It is a statement of the
dignity and worth of the individual".58
The Charter forms part of the Canadian Constitution. It
sets out those rights and freedoms which Canadians believe are necessary in a free and
democratic society. Some of the rights and freedoms contained in the Charter are freedom
of expression, the right to equality, the right to use either of Canada's official
languages and legal rights of persons accused of crimes. The passing of the Charter made
Canada the first country in the world to constitutionally recognise the rights of persons
with mental and physical disabilities. The Supreme Court has read into section 15 that the
purpose of section 15 is to protect groups who suffer social, political and legal
disadvantage in society. This has application for the equal treatment of sexual
orientation.
The Constitution is the supreme law of Canada. Generally
speaking, all other laws must be consistent with the rules set out in the Constitution. If
they are not, they may not be valid. Since the Charter is part of the Constitution, laws
that limit Charter rights may be invalid. This makes the Charter the most important law in
Canada.
There are many laws which create rights in addition to
those set out in the Charter. The federal government and the provincial and territorial
governments all have laws which protect rights and freedoms. These additional laws, for
example, prevent discrimination in employment and accommodation, provide consumer
protection and also give rights to witnesses, victims and accused persons.
The rights and freedoms in the Charter are not absolute.
Section 1 of the Charter says that Charter rights can be limited as long as those limits
can be shown to be reasonable in a free and democratic society.
It is also possible for governments to pass laws that take
away some rights under the Charter. This provision is found in section 33 of the Charter
and is sometimes called the "notwithstanding clause". Under section 33, the
federal government or other Canadian government can make a particular law which is exempt
from certain sections of the Charter. An exemption from the Charter lasts a maximum of
five years. After that, if the particular legislature wants the exemption to continue it
must make a new declaration under section 33. This section is to ensure that Parliament
and not the courts have the final say on important matters of public policy. To date,
provincial legislatures have used the section rarely59.
It has never been used by the Federal Parliament. When the Charter was passed, the
"notwithstanding clause" was Prime Minister Trudeau's "price" for the
support of the provinces for the Charter during federal-provincial negotiations on
repatriating Canada's constitution. While he would have preferred no such clause in the
Charter, he correctly predicted that it would seldom be invoked.
The Charter allows all Canadians to enforce their equality
rights by means of the Supreme Court. Canadians are now used to - if not completely
comfortable with – the spectacle of the Supreme Court overriding legislation passed by
elected bodies where individual rights and freedoms are at issue. Former Canadian Chief
Justice Brian Dickson has characterised the change as a move from "parliamentary
democracy" to "constitutional democracy". 60
The Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, PC, Chief Justice of
Canada says61 that what happened when the Charter
was enacted was that "officials from the federal government and most of the provinces
decided that there should be further limits placed in their own legislative
authority" to the familiar judicial limits placed on, for example, the actions of
elected officials. He says the Charter "did not really create a new function for the
judiciary".
He goes on to remark:
They (meaning legislatures) asked the courts, quite
specifically and presumably, with their eyes wide open, to take on the role of telling
them when they had unjustifiably intruded on those rights. They empowered courts to grant
remedies when the rights of individuals or groups had been infringed and obliged them to
strike down laws that offended the rights and freedoms recognized in the Charter.
His Honour next explores whether legal analysis (which
judges do) is the same as social analysis or making laws (which legislatures do). He says
that courts and Parliament speak different languages. Admittedly these sometime overlap
and sometimes use the same terminology, but he says "there is a world of difference
between saying that a piece of legislation violates a constitutional right and saying that
it is bad social policy. These are simply not the same thing. Sometimes this distinction
is lost and, when that happens, judges are sometimes criticized for usurping the role of
Parliament".62 He suggests that "one
may disagree with a judge's decision without jumping to the conclusion that the judge has
stepped outside his or her judicial role".63
While Members were in Canada there were several articles
published in national and provincial newspapers about the Charter. One article64 was written by the Reform Party Leader, Preston
Manning. The Reform Party is the Official Opposition in the House of Commons in Ottawa. In
essence the writer urges that Parliament must ensure that every statute it passes contain
words which make the intention of Parliament crystal clear. He observes:
He is asserting that Ministers in the Parliament seek to
achieve policy changes without any personal accountability or political risk to
themselves.
His point was that some Ministers of government seem to
prefer to let the courts decide things that Parliament itself ought to decide. He makes
reference to areas of controversy such as defining "sexual orientation" and the
meaning of aboriginal title.
Some parliamentarians told members that the labour union
movement in Canada considered that the Charter was a disaster. This is because it
emphasises individual rights rather than the rights of the collective.
Others asserted that most Canadians say that the Charter
defines their identity and that the Charter had changed the culture of operation
enormously, for the good. The Charter was described as a battering ram or searchlight. It
was observed that the areas in which it has had key effects were in gender rights and
multicultural rights.
Supporters of the Charter say that the price of judicial
activism is small as compared to the benefits it ensures for the nation. Some supporters
assert that the Charter should never be seen as definitive. These people hold the view
that rights should always be seen as emerging and that the very root of democratic
government is a permanent debate over the definition of rights.
As one writer concludes:
Generally, the intellectual elite, academic lawyers,
labour unions and minorities are supportive of the Charter. Police bodies are predictably
more critical of its effects, especially in the area of criminal law; as are employers, of
its effects on labour law, and the churches, of its effect on social policy. Many informed
commentators are concerned that the courts have gone too far and that the supposed
dialogue between the courts and parliament is in effect a one way street. As respected
columnist Jeffrey Simpson puts it, "the (Supreme Court) has made some highly
debatable rulings to which a principled political leader could plausibly object".
...
When courts tell a government that its legislation is
wrong, the immediate victory is that of the individual over the state. It is less obvious
that the people through their elected representatives have suffered a setback. When
people, however, begin to perceive that their governments are unresponsive or
unrepresentative the value of democratic institutions is open to question65.
Members discussed among themselves whether human rights
and freedoms would be enhanced in Australia if we were to adopt an equivalent to Canada's
Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Members had the honour of a meeting with Michelle
Falardeau-Ramsay, QC, Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The
Commission is the organisation created by the Canadian Human Rights Act to look into
allegations of discrimination and to help create greater equality of opportunity. The
Canadian Human Rights Act applies to federal government departments, Crown corporations
and agencies, as well as to businesses under federal jurisdiction.
There are 3 main aspects to its work:–
· restoring the rights of those who have been discriminated against;
· preventing discrimination before it occurs; and
· promoting greater understanding of human rights and how they are protected.
One distinguishing feature of Canada which is more
apparent in Ottawa than in Regina, Saskatchewan, is that Canada has two official languages
– French and English. The Province of Ontario has a population of more than 9 million
people of whom approximately 76% speak English as their first language and about 5% speak
French as their first language. The remainder has other first languages. Nonetheless as a
result of the Section 16 of the Charter, legislation is authored in both English and
French. Everyone has the right to use English or French in any debates and other
proceedings of the federal Parliament (s.17). The etiquette of speaking in the Parliament
is that a Member or Senator makes a reply to questions in the language in which they are
asked. Similarly, everyone has the right to use English or French in any federal court
proceedings, and the right to correspond with the federal government in French or English
(ss.19 and 20).
| Footnotes |
| 51 |
See Appendix 2 – Special Committee
on Regulations – Terms of Reference and Legal Counsel's checklist. |
| 52 |
Regulations in Saskatchewan – A
Drafter's Perspective, Ian Brown, Chief Legislative Crown Counsel, p. 2. |
| 53 |
Briefings for Parliament of Victoria
Delegation, 16 June 1998, Ms Lynn Minja, Hansard verbatim report, p. 23. |
| 54 |
Hon. Ned Shillington, Provincial Secretary,
Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, 14 June 1998 at an informal gathering of the
Subcommittee. |
| 55 |
The following material summarises an essay on
the Canadian Regulation Reference by Margaret M. Hill, PhD, A Historical Perspective on
Regulatory Reform: Institutions and Ideas after the Regulation Reference. |
| 56 |
Parliament of Victoria, Law Reform Committee,
Regulatory Efficiency Legislation: Discussion Paper and Report, 1997. |
| 57 |
See Report on Bill C-62, prepared for the
Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulation of the Parliament of Canada ,
February 1995. |
| 58 |
The Rt. Hon. Jean Chretien, PC QC MP, Prime
Minister of Canada, Foreword, Your Guide to the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, 1997. This is a most useful guide to the Charter and has been drawn upon for
some of the above commentary. |
| 59 |
Members were advised that the
"notwithstanding" provision had never been used federally; that Quebec had used
it 4 times for certain of its language laws; Saskatchewan had employed it once to send
striking public servants back to work (although the Supreme Court overturned this); and
Alberta had thought about it recently in relation to the sexual orientation issue explored
in Vriend vs. Alberta. |
| 60 |
Private paper prepared for the Australian
High Commission, Canada and the Charter of Rights, April 1998. |
| 61 |
The Evolving Role of the Supreme Court of
Canada in Constitutional Cases, Rt. Hon. Antonio Lamer, PC, Chief Justice of Canada,
February 1998. |
| 62 |
Op. cit. p. 4. |
| 63 |
Op. cit. p. 4. |
| 64 |
Parliament, not judges, must make the laws
of the land, The Globe and Mail, 16 June 1998. |
| 65 |
Private paper prepared for the Australian
High Commission, Canada and the Charter of Rights, April 1998. |
CONTINUE browsing Chapter 3 - Overseas Visit of a Subcommittee of the Scrutiny of Acts and
Regulations Committee, 13 June to 2 July 1998
[Home]
[Table of Contents]
Last Updated 31/8/99
©Parliament of Victoria
[Home]
[Table of Contents]
Last Updated 31/8/99
©Parliament of Victoria
|