Essay On Notwithstanding Clause

This enables the federal government to assume full responsibility over the entire First Nations population. In A People’s Dream Aboriginal Self-Government in Canada, by Dan Russell, 2000, he brings up issues about the federal government making policies that have direct affect on First Nations People and they have no knowledge or say of what happens regarding decision about their people[4]. The federal government has a great deal of power that will ultimately alter how First Nations are dealt with. Dan Russell discuses both the Meech Lake Accord and the Charlotte Town Accord that would have had a major impact on how “Indians” were handled he states “Canadian history and laws, since shortly after initial contact with Europeans settlers, have limited the possibilities of easily exercising Aboriginal self-government in Canada”[5]. Once the first wave of settles arrived in North America, the Dominion of Canada created the power to control how settlers and resources were handled which left them also having to deal with the original inhabitants by means isolation in reserves. To look back into history even in the earliest stages of civilization First Nations People were only “interpreters and clerks, but none at the policy-making level”[6], in order to create change they need to be where these policies are being made. In making these policies and procedures there has been little to no

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).

This was a very major event as The Constitution Act is a very difficult thing to edit or change. Up until this point none of the Canadians rights or freedoms was protected. This law is very helpful today as without we would not be as blessed as we are to have certain rights and freedoms if they were never placed into the constitution act.

Pierre Trudeau made Canada what it is today in a positive manner by creating the Constitutions Act as well as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Constitutions Act started in 1982. The act allowed everyone to have fundamental freedoms. Those fundamental freedoms included: freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of thought, belief, opinion, expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and the freedom of association as stated in the Constitution Act of 1982. The Act also includes mobility rights that include: every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada itself with no troubles at all, and to move into any province with no troubles. The constitution act had equality rights as well, some in which were and are that every individual is equal under the law and has the right to protection of themselves and their families, as well as living with no discrimination based on their race, origin, nationality, religion, sex, age, or disability. The Constitution Act included the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right and freedom to reasonable limits allowed by the law and can be certainly justified in a free and

Pierre Trudeau is one of Canada’s most renowned Prime Ministers. He was in office April 20, 1968, to June 4, 1979, and later on March 3, 1980, to June 30, 1984,.¹ An event that Pierre Trudeau is well known for is the enactment of the War Measures Act during the October Crisis. This decision to invoke the War Measures Act during the October Crisis has led to a great deal of controversy on whether the act was justified. The October Crisis was a series of events in October 1970, these events began with the kidnappings of James Cross and later Pierre Laporte by the group known as the FLQ (Front de libération du Québec) the group’s main goals were to create an independent Quebec.2 The group resorted to terrorist acts in order to achieve those goals, this later led to Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau invoking the War Measures Act. The War Measures Act was a federal statute adopted by parliament during WWI and has been used 3 times; during WWI, WWII and during the October Crisis. The act gives major power to the Canadian government to uphold security during times of great distress.3 Pierre Trudeau was justified in enacting the War Measures Act during the October Crisis. One reason that Pierre Trudeau was justified in invoking the War Measures Act is that the FLQ was essentially a terrorist organization responsible for the deaths and injuries of countless people. Since the group was formed in the early 1960’s, the terrorist group’s acts had only worsened from mailbox bombings to

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.

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.

On October 16, 1970 Trudeau invoked the War Measures Act. It was the first time this Act had been invoked in peacetime, although was justified by the evidence of an insurrection. To start off, the first domestic use of the War Measures Act was invoked which led to improvements on the act. It was invoked and gives emergency power to the federal government and this act further suspended Canadians’ fundamental civil freedoms. Some civil freedoms include: the right to be protected against unwarranted or arbitrary arrests, detentions, searches and seizures, and the right to an attorney. The Act however allowed the government to declare anyone who publicly supported the FLQ to be a member of the group, arrest and hold any of the FLQ without bail for up to 90 days, and imprison FLQ member for up to five years. This builds a trust bridge between the government and the citizens. The citizens have to trust 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.

Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, everyone is guaranteed certain rights. One that stands out and is essential to our society is the fundamental freedom of expression. Anyone can speak their opinion in public. However, the government can in some instances limit these freedoms. The question that causes a lot of debate is in what instances can the government genuinely limit people’s rights while being justified in doing so. I believe the restrictions on speech in Canada are appropriate. I believe that the government was correct in not intervening with the debate between Mark Steyn and the Muslim petitioners because his article did not warrant enough to risk the safety of Muslims, and by coercing Maclean’s to post an opposing viewpoint would be a violation of their fundamental freedom of expression.

Justin Trudeau spoke to the political risks of this charter; he says that the PQ has miscalculated her expectations of what Quebecers will respond to. It is a significant factor in the process, some people may comply with this secular change and some will fight back against the

In this essay, I will demonstrate that the Prime Minister is powerful and can cause many potential dangers by analyzing different elements inside and outside of our government over the period of different Prime Ministers throughout the Canadian political history.

You have asked me to summarize the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Doré v Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12, SCR 395 and analyze whether the Law society is likely to sanction Evan Frank. Although the Rules of Professional Conduct place limitations on certain conduct to ensure professionalism, the expressive rights of lawyers must be given due respect and the likelihood of Mr. Frank’s sanction will depend on a fair balance of “expressive value” of the content in the letter, with the public’s expectation of professionalism.

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.