Parliamentary Debates in Statutory Interpretation: A Question of Admissibility or of Weight?
dc.contributor.author | Beaulac, Stéphane | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2007-05-23T16:06:24Z | |
dc.date.available | 2007-05-23T16:06:24Z | |
dc.date.issued | 1998 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/1866/1329 | |
dc.format.extent | 2839697 bytes | |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
dc.publisher | McGill Law Journal | en |
dc.subject | legislation | |
dc.subject | statutory interpretation | |
dc.subject | parliamentary debates | |
dc.subject | legislative history | |
dc.subject | extrinsic aid | |
dc.subject | parliamentary intent | |
dc.title | Parliamentary Debates in Statutory Interpretation: A Question of Admissibility or of Weight? | en |
dc.type | Article | en |
dc.contributor.affiliation | Université de Montréal. Faculté de droit | fr |
dcterms.abstract | The exclusionary rule which prohibits references to parliamentary materials as an aid to statutory interpretation has been applied for decades in most common law jurisdictions. The House of Lords handed down its fundamental decision in Pepper v. Hart which allowed reference to parliamentary dabates in limited circumstances. The author first examines the English origins of the exclusionary rule as well as its application in other common law jurisdictions, including Australia, New Zealand, the United States and Canada, The author also comments on the situation prevailing in Quebec's civil law system. The exclusion of parliamentary debates is then considered in the broader context of the methods and principles of statutory construction. The author contends that the issue of parliamentary dabates in statutory interpretation is a question of weight and not of admissibility. To support this position, the rationales underlying the exclusionary rule are analysed and, for the most part, refuted. After demonstrating that parliamentary debates should play a role as an interpretative aid to ascertain legislative intent, the author concludes by suggesting factors to consider in determining their persuasive force. | en |
dcterms.description | The article was first published in the McGill Law Journal. Un résumé en français est disponible. | en |
dcterms.description | [À l'origine dans / Was originally part of : Fac. Droit - Coll. facultaire - Théories du droit] | fr |
dcterms.language | eng | en |
UdeM.VersionRioxx | Version acceptée / Accepted Manuscript | |
oaire.citationTitle | McGill law journal = Revue de droit de McGill | |
oaire.citationVolume | 43 | |
oaire.citationStartPage | 287 | |
oaire.citationEndPage | 324 |
Files in this item
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
This document disseminated on Papyrus is the exclusive property of the copyright holders and is protected by the Copyright Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42). It may be used for fair dealing and non-commercial purposes, for private study or research, criticism and review as provided by law. For any other use, written authorization from the copyright holders is required.