It also provides a reasoned, logical approach to gaining truth and justice (through the judicial branch) and provides Canadians with a definitive structure to promote the progress of business, education, human rights and governance. But, is this document really that definitive? On close inspection, the interpretative nature of the constitution becomes apparent. From allegations of a prime ministerial monarchy (Mellon, 2013), to the federally sanctioned mistreatment of First Nations Peoples, the constitution seems ambiguous and interpretive in nature. Therefore, the Canadian Constitution is a representative example of a ‘Post Conventional’ grand philosophy.
The first is called political asymmetry; this encompasses the various attitudes of the different provinces such as the culture, economic, social and political conditions and how it shapes the relationship between the provincial and federal governments (Brock 2008, 4). This can create a problem for the federal government because it means that they may ha... ... middle of paper ... ...ratic process but it at least protects the rights of Canadians and prevents all out domination the majority. This essay has argued that there are many limitations that the Prime Minister is subjected too. The three most important are federalism in Canadian society, the role of the Governor General, and the charter of rights and freedoms. I used two different views of federalism and illustrated how both of them put boundaries on the Prime Minister’s power.
Instead, the focus has been on sub judice common law contempt, its effect on our rights and freedoms, and the arguments in respect of codification. Balancing the rights and freedoms of Canadians with the administration of justice, the logical step seems to be in the direction of codification. Other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom, have taken the positive step toward codification. Perhaps Canada should examine the progress of these jurisdictions, and determine whether their attempts to limit the scope of media restrictions, while protecting the interests involved in trial proceedings, have been successful.
This journal article talks about Canada’s role as a middle power in the world and the responsibilities that come with said power. It also discusses the relations with NATO and how it has changed Canadian foreign policy from peacekeeping that existed in the late 1900s to peace building, along with discussing the similarities and differences between the two. Paris, Roland. "Are Canadians still liberal internationalists? Foreign policy and public opinion in the Harper era."
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.
The Inclusion of the Notwithstanding Clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms The inclusion of the Notwithstanding Clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was an invaluable contribution in the evolution of the liberal democratic state. Not an endpoint, to be sure, but a significant progression in the rights protection dynamic. Subsequent to its passage in 1982 it became the primary rights protecting mechanism, however, its raison d`etre was as a neccessary concession, the pivotal factor allowing the patriation of the constitution. Many legislators present at the constitutional conference in 1981 opposed in varying degrees the entrenchment of a "bill of rights" in the constitution. The premier of Saskatchewan, Allan Blakeney, A preeminent liberal legislator at the time, recognized this potential document as an invitation to judicial review.
Whereas before the adoption of the Charter Canadian legislatures were supreme, having power without limit within their jurisdictions, they now have debatable supremacy within altered jurisdictions. Moreover, although no powers or rights have been explicitly ‘reserved’ to the people, supporters of the charter nevertheless appear to give Canadians hope that the possibility may exist. COMPARISON OF B... ... middle of paper ... ...wo constitutional documents may be similar in respect to their provisions respecting rights, it would not necessarily follow that claims of violation of rights would receive the same response from the courts of both nations. A proper analysis of why this is so would require a book-length account of the constitutional and political history of Canada and the United States. It would include but would not be limited to the selection and role of judges, the role of legislatures and political leadership, the attitudes and practices of the police and administrative agencies, and, not least, popular attitudes towards rights, minorities, and government.
The complication with the Canadian Bill of Rights was that it was only a federal statute, whereas the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional document. Canada practices the system of parliamentary while the United States uses a presidential system. Each system has a different procedure when it comes to the three different branches of government; executive, judicial, and legislative. Each of these aspects and changes lead to impacting Canada in a positive way. There are numerous institutional structures countries practice.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II April 17, 1982. Often referred to as the Charter, it affirms the rights and freedoms of Canadians in the Constitution of Canada. The Charter encompasses fundamental freedoms, democratic rights, mobility rights, legal rights, language rights and equality rights. The primary function of the Charter is to act as a regulatory check between Federal, Provincial and Territorial governments and the Canadian people. Being a successor of the Canadian Bill of Rights that was a federal statute, amendable by Parliament, the Charter is a more detailed and explicit constitutional document that has empowered the judiciary to render regulations and statutes at both the federal and provincial levels of government unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court that has official power appointed by judges to make changes to the constitutions and statutes in Canada. The Supreme Court is part of network of courts that deal with federal and provincial matters. Supreme Court is the only court that can deal with all types of matters. In this paper, the Supreme Court shows it has become activist in making charter decisions. Where, firstly the role of judicial activism will be viewed, judges have immunity in making changes in laws, and the government does not play a role in appointing these laws.