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 |
Fichier·s constituant ce document
Ce document figure dans la ou les collections suivantes
Ce document diffusé sur Papyrus est la propriété exclusive des titulaires des droits d'auteur et est protégé par la Loi sur le droit d'auteur (L.R.C. (1985), ch. C-42). Il peut être utilisé dans le cadre d'une utilisation équitable et non commerciale, à des fins d'étude privée ou de recherche, de critique ou de compte-rendu comme le prévoit la Loi. Pour toute autre utilisation, une autorisation écrite des titulaires des droits d'auteur sera nécessaire.