In the contentious world of politics the actors at times find themselves at an impasse, unable to move forward between their conflicting visions. In these moments the courts may be asked to mediate between the different levels of government by providing constitutional or legislative advice. These scenarios can become perilous because since the courts must provide insight on issues that are political without stepping outside of its jurisdiction. Regardless of their dangers, however, I would argue that the reference instrument has proven to be a valuable tool in preventing political chaos. In the Patriation Reference and the Quebec Secession Reference the courts ++++---In order to illustrate the importance of reference cases in the Canadian system, despite their shortcomings, I will first look at the history of the advisory mechanism with a view to explain the roll of the courts. I will then look at the constitutional perspectives the courts took in several reference cases, especially the Patriation Reference and the Quebec Cessession Reference. In the next section I will explore the ways in which the courts opinions in these cases impacted Canadian federalism to determine the constitutionality of their advice. Finally I will explore the eventualities of a system without reference cases to demonstrate why they are so important. Attention will also be paid to the reference system of the United States in order to provide a comparative view. I will argue that in reference cases the Supreme Court takes on an important role as a mediator between political actors, however, the Court must act with caution as these are perilous grounds where suggestions can cross into political territory. – Indeed, political actors can abuse the system, >re...
... middle of paper ...
...ating through the power of another government Canada would have undermined the legitimacy of its governance, which would have a poor starting point. Indeed, a unilateral decision would result in overwhelming disrepute that would come from using them as a “simple rubber stamp” . Indeed, Russell argues that the inherent risk of the Court's decision was that if an agreement was not reached, "the federal government might have exercised its legal option of proceeding unilaterally" which would have been the worst "way for Canada to finally take charge of her own constitutional affairs" .
According to the minutes, Thatcher said, “(Her Majesty’s Government) did not want to be accused of interfering in any way. HMG could help; and if, for example, queues of Indians knocked on the door of No. 10, the answer would be that it was for Canada to decide her future and not HMG.”
In 1759, the Canadian Court Justice system was brought to Canada by the French. After the battle of Quebec, all of Canada then followed the English common law system except for Quebec 1. Based on my understanding and knowledge of N. Christie’s arguments and the Canadian court system, I believe that Christie’s criticism of modern legal system is fair and it effects our current court system today.
This essay will analyze the entire case R. v. Morin and evaluate the facts, issues, positions of the Crown and accused. The decisions made during this case and reasons that ultimately lead to the final verdict by the Ontario Court of appeal. This essay will evaluate the decision of whether the delay of the R. v. Morin and the cases that it set precedent for were valid decisions made by the court. This evaluation will describe the arguments made on both sides during these trials. It will discuss how the decision made by the court to decide the trial delay being reasonable were the correct decisions and that section 11(b) of the Charter was not violated. The essay will also discuss the court cases R. v. Godin...
As one of the founding nations of Canada, Québec felt that they have been mistreated and that the French language has been ignored by the rest of Canada. In 1968 René Lévesque, an ex-journalist, founded the first separatist political party in Canada, the Parti Québécois (www.pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca). Lévesque wanted to address the fact that Québec society was distinct and had both a differing view of domestic and foreign policies than the rest of Canada and should therefore become a separate country from Canada (www.pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca). On May 20, 1980 the first referendum in Québec took place. This referendum allowed public to vote on the role of Québec within Canada and whether Québec should pursue a path toward independent statehood (www.en.wikipedia.org). By directly involving the citizens of Québec, this would add to the Québec-Ottawa dispute (Government of Canada 70).
trade in Canada, and even the whole world. Quebec is a big trade market in
Canada: The Quiet Revolution in Quebec The English-French relations have not always been easy. Each is always arguing and accusing the other of wrong doings. All this hatred and differences started in the past, and this Quiet revolution, right after a new Liberal government led by Jean Lesage came in 1960. Thus was the beginning of the Quiet Revolution.
Democracy is more than merely a system of government. It is a culture – one that promises equal rights and opportunity to all members of society. Democracy can also be viewed as balancing the self-interests of one with the common good of the entire nation. In order to ensure our democratic rights are maintained and this lofty balance remains in tact, measures have been taken to protect the system we pride ourselves upon. There are two sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that were implemented to do just this. Firstly, Section 1, also known as the “reasonable limits clause,” ensures that a citizen cannot legally infringe on another’s democratic rights as given by the Charter. Additionally, Section 33, commonly referred to as the “notwithstanding clause,” gives the government the power to protect our democracy in case a law were to pass that does not violate our Charter rights, but would be undesirable. Professor Kent Roach has written extensively about these sections in his defence of judicial review, and concluded that these sections are conducive to dialogue between the judiciary and the legislature. Furthermore, he established that they encourage democracy. I believe that Professor Roach is correct on both accounts, and in this essay I will outline how sections 1 and 33 do in fact make the Canadian Charter more democratic. After giving a brief summary of judicial review according to Roach, I will delve into the reasonable limits clause and how it is necessary that we place limitations on Charter rights. Following this, I will explain the view Professor Roach and I share on the notwithstanding clause and how it is a vital component of the Charter. To conclude this essay, I will discuss the price at which democr...
Canada is known by outsiders to be a very peaceful country. But if you ask any Canadian they well tell you that is unfortunately not the case. For there is a large ongoing conflict between Canadians. The conflict is between the French and the English, or more specifically between Quebec and the rest of Canada. As a result of this conflict, along with some wrongdoing and propaganda. Quebec has considered and has gone as far to hold referendums over Separatism (Surette,2014). Separatism is that the province of Quebec separates from the rest of Canada to form its own country. Which would have immense effects on indubitably Quebec but also the rest of Canada (Martin, 2014). This report will focus on the root causes and origin of Quebec Separatism, the current state of Quebec Separatism and finally how we as a society can act towards Quebec Separatism.
The Prime Minister of Canada is given much power and much responsibility. This could potentially create a dangerous situation if the government held a majority and was able to pass any legislation, luckily this is not the case. This paper will argue that there are many limitations, which the power of the prime minister is subject too. Three of the main limitations, which the Prime Minister is affected by, are; first, federalism, second the governor general and third, the charter of rights and freedoms. I will support this argument by analyzing two different types of federalism and how they impact the power of the Prime Minister. Next I will look at three of the Governor Generals Powers and further analyze one of them. Last I will look at the impact of the charter from the larger participation the public can have in government, and how it increased the power of the courts.
With the opposing sides at almost equal size, it is important to come to a final decision. Before possible violence breaks out within the province. Bibliography Doran, Charles F. “Will Canada Unravel?” in Foreign Affairs. Sept-Oct 1996 v75 n5 pg97.
(Soniak,2012, para1). Some people may argue that, it is impossible for Britain to invade any countries in present day, but keep in mind we never know what will happen next in the world. Canada as a country does not want to cause troubles and take away other countries’ freedom and their own identities.
During the ratification of the Constitution, anti-Federalists proposed a compromise in which the state of New York reserved the “right to withdraw herself from the Union after a certain number of years” if the federal government did not support reforms the state favored. The Federalists immediately rejected the compromise claiming that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession. Alexander Hamilton and John Jay made it abundantly clear that the “reservation of a right to withdraw” was ultimately “inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification.”
The British North America Act went into effect July 1st, 1867 creating a union known as the Dominion of Canada, but this did not complete the debate on the Confederation issue. Many Nova Scotians continued their opposition to the idea and it would take considerable time before all Nova Scotians would accept the fact of Confederation. “These Nova Scotians, disgruntled at their treatment by Great Britain, found that their loyalty had markedly diminished. The more they considered taking over the responsibility for their own affairs from England, however, the greater trust they had to place in Confederation.”25 Confederation struck a balance between the rights of English and French speaking Canadians. Nevertheless, many divisions, conflicts, and debates would occur not only in Quebec but also in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick over this balance. Economic disparities between the Maritimes and the rest of Canada would also create many problems for the years following 1867. As a result, Confederation can be viewed as a beginning and not an end.
In conclusion Canada gained independence because of a series of events that took place during the twentieth century. If it hadn’t been for these events, Canada to this day might have been a part of the British Empire. Through discussion on the Chanak affair we signalled that we wanted autonomy. Through our hard work and lives, the world knew we had the ability to stand alone as a strong nation. While, our international reputation of being a “peacekeeping” country the right to stand as an independent self-governing nation. But finally through the Canada Act, we stood solely independent from our Empire. It is obvious that the twentieth century provided us with great chances to become an independent strong nation.
Canada’s parliamentary system is designed to preclude the formation of absolute power. Critics and followers of Canadian politics argue that the Prime Minister of Canada stands alone from the rest of the government. The powers vested in the prime minister, along with the persistent media attention given to the position, reinforce the Prime Minister of Canada’s superior role both in the House of Commons and in the public. The result has led to concerns regarding the power of the prime minister. Hugh Mellon argues that the prime minister of Canada is indeed too powerful. Mellon refers to the prime minister’s control over Canada a prime-ministerial government, where the prime minister encounters few constraints on the usage of his powers. Contrary to Mellon’s view, Paul Barker disagrees with the idea of a prime-ministerial government in Canada. Both perspectives bring up solid points, but the idea of a prime-ministerial government leading to too much power in the hands of the prime minister is an exaggeration. Canada is a country that is too large and complex to be dominated by a single individual. The reality is, the Prime Minister of Canada has limitations from several venues. The Canadian Prime Minister is restricted internally by his other ministers, externally by the other levels of government, the media and globalization.
WE can however, accommodate mechanisms which operate as additional or subsidiary processes in the discharge of sovereign responsibility. These enable the court system to devote its precious time and resources to the more solemn task of administering justice in the name of sovereign." Street, The language of alternative dispute resolution' (1992) 66 Australian Law Journal, 1994.