Improving the Relevance of Parliamentary Institutions: An Examination of Legislative Pre-budget Consultations in British Columbia

References

• Aldons, M. (2003). Problems with parliamentary committee evaluation: Light at the end of the tunnel? Journal of Australasian Parliamentary Review, 18(1), 79–94.
   Google Scholar
• Aucoin, P., Jarvis, M. D., & Turnbull, L. (2011). Democratizing the constitution. Reforming responsible government. Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Aucoin, P., & Turnbull, L. (2003). The democratic deficit: Paul Martin and parliamentary reform. Administration publique du Canada, 46(4), 427–449. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-7121.2003.tb01586.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Axworthy, T. S. (2008a). Everything old is new again: Observations on parliamentary reform. Kingston: Centre for the Study of Democracy, Queen's University.
   Google Scholar
• Axworthy, T. S. (2008b). Parliamentary reform – Everything old is new again. Policy Options, June, 74–79.
   Google Scholar
• Bégin-Caouette, O. (2010). Parliamentarians' influence on public policy: The case of education. Canadian Parliamentary Review, 33(4), 32–36.
   Google Scholar
• British Columbia. (1999). A review of the estimates process in British Columbia. Victoria: Queen's Printer for British Columbia.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, B., Miller Chenier, N., & Norris, S. (2003). Committees as agents of public policy: The Standing Committee on Health. Canadian Parliamentary Review, 26(3), 4–9.
   Google Scholar
• Budget Process Review Panel. (1999). Credibility, transparency & accountability: Improving the B.C. budget process. Victoria: Queen's Printer for British Columbia.
   Google Scholar
• Delli Carpini, M. X., Cook, F. L., & Jacobs, L. R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315–344. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dobell, P. (2000). Reforming parliamentary practice: The views of MPs. Policy Matters, 1(9), 1–42.
   Google Scholar
• Dobell, P., & Ulrich, M. (2002). Parliament's performance in the budget process: A case study. Policy Matters, 3(5), 1–24.
   Google Scholar
• Docherty, D. C. (2005). Legislatures. Vancouver: UBC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Doern, B. G. (1994). Fairness, budget secrecy, and pre-budget consultation in Ontario, 1985–1992. In A. M. Maslove (Ed.), Taxing and spending: Issues of process (pp. 3–31). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Franks, C. E. S. (1987). The parliament of Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ganley, M. (2001). Do New Zealand select committees make a difference? Journal of Australasian Parliamentary Review, 16(2), 140–150.
   Google Scholar
• Halligan, J. (2008). Parliamentary committee roles in facilitating public policy at the Commonwealth level. Journal of Australasian Parliamentary Review, 23(2), 135–156.
   Google Scholar
• Halpin, D., MacLeod, I., & McLaverty, P. (2012). Committee hearings of the Scottish parliament: Evidence giving and policy learning. Journal of Legislative Studies, 18(1), 1–20. doi: 10.1080/13572334.2012.646707
   Google Scholar
• Hindmoor, A., Larkin, P., & Kennon, A. (2009). Assessing the influence of select committees in the UK: The Education and Skills Committee, 1997–2005. Journal of Legislative Studies, 15(1), 71–89. doi: 10.1080/13572330802666844
   Google Scholar
• Lambert, K. (2007). Limits to select committee investigations – A New Zealand perspective. Journal of Australasian Parliamentary Review, 22(1), 169–182.
   Google Scholar
• Larkin, P. (2008). The changing committee system of the British parliament. Canberra: The House of Representatives' Committee System.
   Google Scholar
• Levy, J. (2009). Strengthening parliament's powers of scrutiny? An assessment of the introduction of public bill committees. London: Constitution Unit, UCL.
   Google Scholar
• Library of Parliament. (2003). The parliament we want. Ottawa: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Maer, L., & Sandford, M. (2004). Select committees under scrutiny. London: Constitution Unit, UCL.
   Google Scholar
• Malloy, J. (1996). Reconciling expectations and reality in House of Common: The case of the 1989 Gst Inquiry. Canadian Public Administration, 39(3), 314–335. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-7121.1996.tb00135.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, J. E. (2011). From legislative machine to representative forum? Procedural change in the new forum. Australasian Parliamentary Review, 26(2), 35–52.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, P. (2002). The democratic deficit. Policy Options, December–January, 10–12.
   Google Scholar
• McGee, D. G. (2007). The budget process: A parliamentary imperative. London: Commonwealth Parliamentary Association with Pluto Press.
   Google Scholar
• McInnes, C. (1996, July 3). Deficit dashes NDP pledge on B.C. budget. Liberals claim government hid details in bid to win recent election campaign. The Globe and Mail, p. A4.
   Google Scholar
• McLeay, E. (2001). Parliamentary committees in New Zealand: A house continuously reforming itself? Paper presented to the Australasian Study of Parliament Group and published in a monograph (Occasional Monograph No. 2). In P. L. Reynolds (Ed.), Parliament 2000 – Towards a Modern Committee System (pp. 53–72). Brisbane: Queensland Parliamentary Library.
   Google Scholar
• McLeay, E. (2006). Scrutiny and capacity: An evaluation of the parliamentary committees in the New Zealand parliament. Journal of Australasian Parliamentary Review, 21(1), 158–182.
   Google Scholar
• Monk, D. (2010). A framework for evaluating the performance of committees in Westminster parliaments. Journal of Legislative Studies, 16(1), 1–13. doi: 10.1080/13572330903541904
   Google Scholar
• Patten, S. (2001). Democratizing the institutions of policy-making: Democratic consultation and participatory administration. Journal of Canadian Studies, 35(4), 221–239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinard, C., Gagnon-Tremblay, M., Rioux, M., & Simard, S. (2000). Some proposals to revitalize committees proceedings in Quebec. Canadian Parliamentary Review, 23(4), 2–10.
   Google Scholar
• Russell, M., & Benton, M. (2011). Selective influence: The policy impact of House of Commons select committees. London: Constitution Unit, UCL.
   Google Scholar
• Savoie, D. J. (2010). Power: Where is it? Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scottish Parliament. (2012). Scottish parliament committees – What are they and what do they do? Edinburgh: Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body.
   Google Scholar
• Seidle, F. L. (2007). Citizens speaking for themselves: New avenues for public involvement. In H. J. Michelmann, D. C. Story, & J. S. Steeves (Eds.), Political leadership and representation in Canada. Essays in honour of John C. Courtney (pp. 81–109). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, D. E. (2007). The people's House of Commons. Theories of democracy in contention. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, J. (2003). Debating the reform of Canada's parliament. In F. L. Seidle & D. D. Docherty (Eds.), Reforming parliamentary democracy (pp. 150–167). Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stewart, K. (2007). Write the rules and win: Understanding citizen participation game dynamics. Public Administration Review, 67(6), 1067–1076. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00798.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tellier, G. (2011). La participation citoyenne au processus d'élaboration des budgets: Une analyse des mécanismes instaurés par les gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux canadiens. Téléscope, 17(1), 95–115.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, P. E. J. (2007). Measuring the effectiveness of a minority parliament. Canadian Parliamentary Review, 30(1), 22–31.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, P. G. (2002). Parliament and the public service. In C. Dunn (Ed.), The handbook of Canadian public administration (pp. 341–368). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, P. G. (2003). The past, present and future of officers of parliament. Canadian Public Administration, 46(3), 287–314. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-7121.2003.tb01171.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, P. G. (2010). Parliament and legislatures: Central to Canadian democracy? In D. E. Smith & J. C. Courtney (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Canadian politics (pp. 153–171). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tremblay, M., & Mullen, S. (2007). Le Comité permanent de la condition féminine de la Chambre des communes du Canada: Un outil au service de la représentation politique des femmes? Canadian Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 615–637. doi: 10.1017/S0008423907070758
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wehner, J. (2010). Legislatures and the budget process. The myth of fiscal control. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• White, G. (2006). Evaluating provincial and territorial legislatures. In C. Dunn (Ed.), Provinces: Canadian provincial politics (pp. 255–278). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar