“Britain – Oratory – Rhetoric and reality.” Economist 454 (9434): 22, February 8, 2025.

The puzzle of Parliament’s shrinking speeches.

“Use cases for AI in parliaments.” Inter-Parliamentary Union – Geneva. 139p: January 2025.

“The Guidelines for AI in Parliaments” are complemented by a series of “Use cases for AI in parliaments,” which offer potential roadmaps for parliamentary AI adoption. A “use case” describes how a system should work. It is used to plan, develop and measure implementation. Use cases translate the abstract potential of AI into practical applications for parliamentary operations. The use cases cover how to use AI tools to support bill drafting and amendments, to improve the production of verbatim reports or subtitles for video content, and to support public engagement, particularly the analysis of large volumes of public submissions, as well as cybersecurity AI tools that support the development of secure parliamentary systems.

Blore, Kent. “The first ‘caretaker’ government.” Australasian Parliamentary Review 39 (2): 150-66, Spring/Summer 2024.

This article attempts to trace the origins of the caretaker convention. Most commentators look back no further than Sir Winston Churchill’s caretaker government formed in the extraordinary circumstances that existed in the final days of World War II. The wartime coalition had broken up, leaving Churchill to form a new government, promising to act with restraint pending the first general election in Britain in nearly a decade. But the story neither begins nor ends there. Churchill’s government was not the first to be called a ‘caretaker’ government and even his caretaker government did not align with the modern concept. Searching for the first ‘caretaker’ government reveals a complex interaction between the label and the convention that played out over a century from 1885 to 1987 and beyond. The full story also suggests there may be a deeper rationale for the caretaker convention than the need for restraint while a government is not responsible to Parliament—the need for restraint while a government has impaired legitimacy.

Cappe, Mel, Campagnolo, Yan. “Les débats sur le secret ministériel sont loin d’être clos / Debates about cabinet secrecy are far from over.” Ottawa Law Review / Revue de droit d’Ottawa 56 (1): 9-24, 2023-2024.

In February 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that Premier Doug Ford’s mandate letters to his ministers are protected by Cabinet secrecy and therefore exempt from the disclosure requirements of the provincial access to information regime. While this decision rightly recognized the importance of Cabinet secrecy to maintaining effective government, it raises concerns about the scope of this protection and its impact on the transparency and accountability of public institutions.

Chaplin, Steven. “The Canadian Prime Minister’s request for prorogation was neither ‘illegal’ nor unconstitutional.” Constitution Unit 5p., January 24, 2025.

On 6 January, the Governor General of Canada granted a request for a two-month prorogation of parliament. A legal challenge was soon launched to have it declared unlawful. The author argues that the prorogation is perfectly proper, that it is highly unlikely that a Canadian court will rule it to be unlawful, and that comparisons with the Boris Johnson prorogation request in 2019 and the subsequent Miller 2 case do not hold up.

Ecker, Janet L. “Artificial intelligence in the legislature.” The Parliamentarian – Journal of the Parliaments of the Commonwealth 105 (3): 260-61 2024.

A former Member of the Ontario Legislature explains how AI is impacting Parliaments.

Gaspard, Valere. “Debating the voting age: how Canadian legislators grapple with the federal voting age.” American Review of Canadian Studies 54 (2): 161-79, 2024.

Choosing a minimum voting age for an election is a decision that democratic countries make at some point in their history but remains an issue that is periodically revisited. And yet, we know too little about how legislators frame support or opposition to changing the voting age. This article uses frame analysis to explore the arguments made by Canadian legislators to support or oppose changes to its federal voting age. This article poses three research questions and examines two periods of parliamentary debates (1901–1972 and 1972–2022). The analysis finds that the arguments used by legislators in both periods changed very little and that Canadian legislators used changing the voting age as a tool to encourage young citizens to participate in formal institutions of the political process (such as voting) and to discourage youth from protesting or from taking political actions outside of formal institutions.

Grant, Andrea Mariko. “Measuring online abuse faced by Canadian politicians.” The Parliamentarian – Journal of the Parliaments of the Commonwealth 105 (4): 318-19, 2024.

The Samara Centre for Democracy in Canada has examined the online abuse faced by MPs.

Jain, Anvesh. “‘Like the Fox Guarding the Henhouse’: the gradual cession of parliamentary authority over national security affairs in the post-ATA [Anti-Terrorism Act] era.” Journal of Parliamentary and Political Law / Revue de droit parlementaire et politique 18 (3): 779- November/novembre 2024.

Maintaining essential security within an open society necessitates certain contradictions and uncomfortable compromises, which are at the root of navigating national security law. In Canada, the governance of national security matters implicates a wide range of constitutional and juridical concepts, not least of which include explorations of the Crown prerogative, Parliamentary supremacy, Parliamentary privilege, the confidence convention, and Charter values. In the 23 years since the deadly 9/11 terror attacks, Canada’s national security infrastructure has witnessed a complete revolution and a radical expansion in form, function, and presence in the day-to-day lives of Canadians. The rapid and somewhat haphazard drafting and passage of Bill C-36 in 2001, otherwise known as the Anti-Terrorism Act, set in motion a struggle between the executive and legislative branches of government that is still being actively fought today.

Janse, Eric. “Managing conflicting competencies between parliamentary committees.” Constitutional & Parliamentary Information / Informations constitutionnelles et parlementaires 225: 47-53, 2024.

“Today, I am here to discuss with you the topic of managing conflicting competencies between parliamentary committees. I want to share with you some information about how parliamentary committees work in the Canadian House of Commons context – and how they sometimes do not! – and perhaps in the process reveal a secret or two about how things are done in my parliament.”

Kennedy, Gerard J. “Power over parliament: the status and future of the justiciability of the legislative process.” Journal of Parliamentary and Political Law / Revue de droit parlementaire et politique 18 (3): 557- November/novembre 2024.

The internal affairs of Parliament have historically been strictly protected from judicial review through the doctrine of parliamentary privilege. But what occurs when other parts of a constitution are apparently offended by legally binding decisions internal to Parliament? This has become an issue of increasing importance in Canada following the constitutional entrenchment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In Canada (Attorney General) v. Power, a majority of the Supreme Court, over two forceful dissents, held that parliamentary privilege is not a complete bar to the review of the legislative process for compliance with the Charter, and that damages can be an appropriate remedy for both the legislative process and the enactment of legislation that does not comply with the Charter.

Kimaid, Luis, Fitsilis, Fotios, Lima, Joano. “Key considerations of artificial intelligence in parliaments.” Bússola Tech 12p, October 2024.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) offers both significant opportunities and challenges for parliamentary services. This brief highlights how AI can enhance parliamentary operations. It describes various AI applications, such as legislative drafting, historical archiving, procedural guidance, Hansard and constituent relations, while emphasising the importance of ethical implementation.

Mortensen, Melanie J. “Power and privilege: a user’s guide to parliamentary law.” Journal of Parliamentary and Political Law / Revue de droit parlementaire et politique 18 (3): 583- November/novembre 2024.

This is a user’s guide to parliamentary law. This may be relevant to many potential users. If you must abide by Canadian laws, you are affected by what goes on in provincial legislatures and Parliament. But the author has a more specific user in mind: a new Parliamentary Counsel who is starting work in a legislative institution and needs orientation. The author hopes what she has to say will also be useful to procedural experts and other officials supporting legislative institution, members, officers and witnesses, who are protected by parliamentary privilege when carrying out their duties in support of the legislative institution and those who may make or challenge a claim of parliamentary privilege in other contexts, such as in court or an inquiry or investigation.

von Lucke, Jörn; Fitsilis, Fotios; Gagnon, Stéphane. “Using artificial intelligence in Parliament – Initial results from the Canadian House of Commons.” CEUR Workshop Proceedings 3737: 12p, September 2024.

Parliaments are already exploring the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) technology for specific tasks. Reflecting on possible tools, application areas, usage scenarios, and requirements, it is reasonable to anticipate that AI-driven changes will manifest in parliamentary operations. Though Canada has been championing AI, additional research is necessary for its seamless integration and use in the parliamentary workspace. This research paper contributes to the bridging of this gap by presenting empirical evidence for the future use of AI-based tools and services, along with addressing open questions for their implementation within the Canadian Parliament. The data were collected during a brainstorming exercise in July 2020 and a virtual workshop in September 2023. An examination was conducted to investigate the relevance and priority of 210 applications and topics related to parliamentary AI.

New and Notable Titles