The Entrenchment clause- 52(3)-
This entrenched the Constitutions Act 1982 and makes it only amendable by the proscribed procedure.
Imperial statues- Hogg 1.5“Parliamentary Privileges”
The federal Houses of Parliament and the provincial legislative assemblies posses a set of powers and privileges that are “necessary to their capacity to function as legislative bodies.”This was supported by the SCC in
New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v Nova Scotia (1993)
were excluded from the Nova Scotia legislative assembly.
regarded as a branch of the common law as it is not contained in any statute or other written instrument and it isthe courts who determine its existence and extent.
2 peculiar characteristics of Parliamentary Privileges stated by the SCC in
New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v Nova Scotia (1993)
It is part of the Constitutions of Canada
the powers authorized by parliamentary privilege are not subject to the Charter Rights.
Is different from royal prerogatives and other common law powers of government.
No difference between in constitutional status between legislative privileged and inherit privileged-both are exempt from the Charter.
also includes freedom of speech in debate, including from legal proceedings for things said in debates. It alsoincludes right of members of parliament or legislative assemblies not to testify in court proceedings while Parliament or the Legislature isin Session.
The royal prerogative consists of the powers and privileges accorded by the common law to the Crown. The prerogative is a branch of thecommon law, because it is the decision of the courts which have determined its existence and extent
Case of Proclamations (1611).
heyare powers and privileges that are unique to the Crown.
Conventions are rules of the constitution that are not enforced by the law courts. Because they are not enforced by the law courts, theyare best regarded as non-legal rules, but because they regulate the working of the constitution, they are important. They prescribe the way in whichlegal powers shall be exercised.
A) Convention in Courts –
although not enforced by courts, the existence of a convention has occasionally been recognized by the courts.
Liverside v Anderson 
conventions of responsible government which make a minster accountable to Parliament as aconsideration in deciding to give a broad rather than narrow interpretation to a statue conferring power on a Minster .
was asked whether there was a convention requiring that the consent of the provinces be obtained before the federalgovernment requested the United Kingdom to enact an amendment to the Consti of Canada. That would affect the provinces. The court wasalso asked whether there was a legal requirement for provincial consent.
B) Convention in Usage-
A convention is a rule.
is not a rule, but merely a governmental practice which is ordinarily followed,although it is not required as obligatory
ie of Usage- the practice of appointing to the position of Chief Justice of Canada the person who isthe senior puisne judge of the SCC at the time of the vacancy. This practice has been departed with the appointment of McLachlin in 2000.A “
may develop into a convention. The process of evolution from usage to convention may be called a “
isas unenforceable as a
There is a strong moral obligation to follow a
and departure from a convention will be criticised more.
the court found the convention required a “substantial degree” of provincialconsent but it was not necessary to decide exactly what the requisite degree is.
C) Convention in Agreement-
A convention can be established by all relevant officials agreeing to adopt a certain rule of constitutionalconduct, then that rule may immediately come to be regarded as obligatory and are usually written down by the officials in precise andauthoritative terms.
-1930 when the Prime Minster of the self governing dominions of the Commonwealth agreed that the king ( or Queen) would appoint the Governor General of a dominion solely on the advice of the government of the dominion.)
D) Convention and Law –
A convention could be transformed into law by being enacted as a statue. A convention would also betransformed into law if it is enforced by the courts. If a court did enforce a convention (and admittedly no court has ever done so), theconvention would be transformed into a legal rule.
Why do people obey them if not law
? The breach of a convention would result inserious political repercussions and eventualchanges in law.
regulate the way in which legal powers shall be exercised and bring outdated legal powers into conformity with currentnotions of government. Their purpose is to “is to ensure that legal framework of the values or principles of the period
Re: Resolution to Amend the Constitution  1 SCR
E) Convention and Policy-
Public School Boards Assn v Alta. [2000} & English Catholic Teachers Case v Ont -
public schoolsupported argued that provincial educational statues violated a constitutional convention. Held- in both cases that no convention restrictedthe policy or substance of what could be enacted by the provincial Legislature in exercise in its power to make laws in relation toeducation. Conventions affected only the structure of government power, not the polices to which government power was addressed.
Reference re Secession of Quebec
1998] 2 S.C.R. 217
Constitutionality of unilateral separation of Quebec
Quebec cannot secede