It is well known that a multitude of components affect the way in which public policy is crafted and applied in Canada. Factors such as policy paradigms, the government in power, and economic incentives greatly impact how public policy affects Canadians. However, an unexpected political actor shapes Canadian law in a more extrinsic and all-encompassing way and acts as a sort of “unofficial” policy maker in government despite its role in the judicial court system: The Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada is a public policy maker because it has the ability to extend the parameters of a law (to some degree), redact a law, and restrict the abilities of other Canadian policymakers. According to Heinmiller (2017), public policy …show more content…
Moreover, the commentaries of Supreme Court justices themselves further substantiate the claims of Malfredai by describing the Court's role in Canadian government. Concordantly, Supreme Justice Michael Moldaver, in an interview special facilitated by CPAC, asserts that “we [being supreme court justices] bear the responsibility of shaping and refining the law for an entire country…”(Moldaver, 2014). While Supreme Justice Clement Gascon gives a similar commentary in the same CPAC special stating “The role of the Supreme Court, as far as I'm concerned, is to stand as the leader in the country in terms of the making of the law…” (Gascon, 2014). It is evident that the court’s lack of opposition allows its operation to continue unfettered by external entities or individuals, and because of this; The Court boasts its authority with minimal opposition.
In light of the Latin phrase “Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?” or: “who guards the guardians?”, a pertinent question should be posed towards the court’s relatively unchecked power, seeing that a singular parliamentary failsafe exists in order to adjudicate its actions and or existence. Section 33 of the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms describes the parliamentary
To what extent was Pierre Trudeau’s vision of a “just society” actually achieved in Canada in (and since) the 1970s? Canada is a just society because of the changes to women's legal rights, ethnic minority human rights, and multiculturalism.
n response to the criticisms of those who are anti-judicial activism, “supporters of judicial activism say such activism through judicial review is necessary because it allows the courts to step in and fill gaps in the law where minorities are not protected because of political pressures and where politicians are afraid to legislate” . This raises the argument that judges and the judiciary play a balanced activist legislative role in such a way that it protects the rights of minorities from legislation or regulation imposed by the government. Within our democratic system, legislators will pay attention to what the majority wants and they will pursue public policies, which favour the majority. This leaves minority interests vulnerable to the legislations and regulations imposed by the government. By playing an active role, the judiciary ensures that the rights of the minorities are protected and that law does not contravene with the Charter of Human Rights and the Constitution of Canada. Through this kind of judicial activism, the courts strike a balance with the legislatures role. This is not to say that the judiciary takes on the role of policymaking and the legislature, but rather that both institutions embrace what is referred to as a “dialogue” where there is a balance between judicial decision-making and legislative-executive decision making . However, according to MacKay, “it is legitimate for the courts to engage in a form of judicial policy making so long as they do
The Government of Canada does a lot of things. Everything from providing us with transportation to making sure everyone has a say in parliament. This group is made up of citizens that we elect to run this country and provide the citizen with a pretty good quality of life. This is the opinion is held by most Canadians. Unfortunately, some still think that we do not live as good a life here as we could somewhere else. Yes, the Government provides and maintains a high quality of life for its citizens. Social Programs provide assistance financially and physically to people that are in need of it. As Canadians, we have an abundance of freedoms and rights to protect us and our government is run as a democracy, where everyone gets a say.
The entrenchment of rights in the Canadian Constitution comes after long experience with a system of parliamentary supremacy. The American judicial tradition of treating the written constitution as fundamental law cannot have an instant Canadian counterpart. Thus, it does not follow that the Canadian courts will necessarily claim a role comparable to that of courts in the United States, nor is it clear that the representative bodies in Canada would tolerate such a judicial assertion of power. Opposition by government bodies to the Charter have already occurred in Canada, where the Parti Quebecois government of Quebec invoked the “notwithstanding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” clause for the purpose of protecting their language laws from attack under the charter. This report will attempt to note some of the common and distinctive features of the text of the two constitutions as well as to how they differ.
In contrast to the Canadian parliamentary system, which has remained fairly static and unchanged since Victorian times, the Canadian legal system has undergone a tremendous evolution over the last century and a half. When looking at Canadian history in depth one discovers the repeated movement to take power from the superiors or the overruling and place it into the palms of the people. As seen through examples our western law (canadian law) has slowly branched off from the supremacy of God (mosaic law), to the supremacy of the monarchy (bristish law), finally to a realization of the importance of citizen participation in the creating, governing, and administrating of the laws (Greek law).
The Special Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate was implemented in 1980 in the wake of the Quebec referendum on independence. The goal of the committee was to hear submissions from the public on amendments to the Constitution. In a three-month consultation period, 914 individuals and groups submitted briefs before the committee (Clément, 2015). Hoping to have a direct impact on the Canadian constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, five organizations
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an important milestone in Canadian history. An effort through rigorous debate and compromise gave birth to this document that defines our collective values and principles by guaranteeing and protecting the fundamental rights of its citizens. Prior to the Charter, there was no gurantee in Canada that rights and freedoms would not be taken away by legislation. The Charter also allows courts to render the constitutional duty so that any decisions made are consistent with those rights and freedoms. The Charter was established firmly in “The Constitution Act, 1982”, with the declaration of this act Canada escaped from the severe practice of concept of parliamentary supremacy. The Charter has an enormous effect on court’s decision power to award justice to important and debatable issues about policies that affect public. In awarding the verdict courts are not even reluctant to rewrite laws that violate the testament of the Charter. The judges have a duty to regulate the rulings of both provincial and federal governments which, disagree with the root value of Charter.
The necessity to limit the rights and freedoms of Canadians is illustrated and reinforced through the governments use of reasonable limits, ‘notwithstanding clause’ to limit individual rights and freedoms, and the occasional need for the government to have power extended above and beyond the limits prescribed in the Charter.
The relationship between the Canadian government and Quebec has been in constant turmoil for years. This paper will discuss and critique Quebec’s five demands made in 1986 by the Liberal government and their current implications. Reasonable demands are ones in which a limited amount of asymmetrical federalism grants provincial sovereignty. Currently all provinces have certain guaranteed rights, however Quebec’s rights provide more autonomy. Quebec, though home to the largest population of French speaking Canadians, have asked too much of the Government of Canada. This is evident Quebec’s increased control over immigration, Supreme Court Justices appointment, and their veto on future constitutional negotiations. Conversely, the demand of recognizing Quebec as a distinct society is however reasonable and has been accommodated into Canadian society, and the ability to restrict federal spending power keeps the federal power in check. In this essay, I will discuss each demand, and argue whether or not it is reasonable.
Pierre Elliot Trudeau was arguably one of the most vivacious and charismatic Prime Ministers Canada has ever seen. He wore capes, dated celebrities and always wore a red rose boutonniere. He looked like a superhero, and often acted like one too. Some of the landmark occurrences in Canadian history all happened during the Trudeau era, such as patriating the constitution, creating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the 1980 Quebec Referendum. However, it is Trudeau’s 1969 “white paper” and the Calder legal challenge which many consider to be one of his most influential contributions to Canadian history.
There have been many complaints and theories of how the Supreme Court has a tendency to act as a "supra-legislature" (Woll 153). It is proposed that the Supreme Court takes the
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.
“The Inheritance” A Short History of Social Programs in Canada During the first part of the twentieth century, before the development of the social safety net, what were some of the circumstances that could leave Canadians destitute? Circumstances that could leave Canadians destitute were: job losses, serious illnesses, deaths in the family – there was no social safety at all. Why didn’t the poor want to go to ‘Poor Houses” set up for them? Who was responsible for taking care of the needy?
Does the Canadian F.P.S govern Canada Efficiently for all canadians? The canadian political system is the heart of the canada’s democracy. Canada has this system for many years. But the question is, is it enough for canadians.
In 2011, three legal and constitutional scholars, Peter Aucoin, Mark D. Jarvis and Lori Turnbull set out to write a book detailing what they believed to be obvious and egregious errors in the way in which the current form of responsible government as it was practiced in the Canadian federal government, fell short of operating within basic democratic parameters. Canada has a system that is based one the Westminster system, in which its the Constitution act of 1867 is influenced by British principles and conventions. “Democratizing the Constitution reforming responsible government” is a book that makes an analysis for the reform of responsible government in Canada. The authors believe that from the unclear rules, pertaining to the role and power of the prime minster foresees for a failing responsible government. In this essay the functions of the government , conventions of the constitution, the a proposal for reform will be addressed.