Suchergebnisse

Women's Legal Strategies in Canada, Radha Jhappan, ed., Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 2002, pp. ix, 407After more than two decades of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is only appropriate that feminist scholars would turn a
critical eye to the achievements for social justice obtained through the courts. In this collection of nine essays, the authors grapple with the difficult question of whether the courts have done more harm or good to women's causes. The result is an interesting, at times challenging,
and sometimes puzzling set of reflections on the future of women's legal strategies in Canada.

This article argues that while asymmetrical arrangements among the units of any federation are necessary and even desirable, federal encroachments on provincial jurisdiction in Canada over the past few decades have triggered a protective impulse in the provinces that has resulted in a multiplication of deals recognizing provincial differences. The nature and variety of such arrangements are undermining the sense of federal comity, goodwill, and understanding so critical to national unity. To avoid heading further down this trajectory and attenuating the bonds that hold the nation together, the federal government should reconsider its role in the federation. While the current Conservative government policy of open federalism begins this reconceptualization of federal and provincial roles and responsibilities, more constructive and principled action is required.

PurposeAccording to the traditional view of public administration, a critical component of good policy formulation is the provision of frank and fearless advice to elected decision-makers. This advice can be provided by permanent public officials or by the people selected by the elected governments to fill key and continuing posts. However, there are major questions as to whether new Governor-in-Council (GIC) appointment processes rooted in new public governance (NPG) are yielding the expected results promised, such as less partisanism, as a consideration for appointment.Design/methodology/approachThe paper uses a mixed methods approach to examine the GIC process as it is used in Canada. In using these methods, the authors employed interviews with senior officials, governmental documents review and expert validation interviews to triangulate its main findings.FindingsThe paper uses the case of the revised appointment process for GIC appointments in Canada and suggests that the new arrangements do not deliver on merit-based criteria that ensures independence is protected between political executive and senior bureaucratic officials. Although new processes may be more open and transparent than past processes, the paper suggests that such processes are more susceptible to partisan influence under the guise of being merit-based.Research limitations/implicationsThe research was limited to one country context, Canada. As such, it will be necessary to expand this to other Westminster countries. Testing whether manifestations of new public governance in appointment processes elsewhere will be important to validate whether Canada is unique or not.Practical implicationsThe authors are left to wonder if this innovation of merit-based appointments in the new administrative state is obscuring the lines of accountability and whether it forms the basis for good policy advice despite promises to the contrary.Social implicationsTrust in the government is affected by decisions behind closed doors. They appear partisan, even when they may not be. Process matters if only to highlight increased value placed on meritorious appointments.Originality/valuePrevious studies on GIC appointments have generally been to explore representation as a value. That is, studies have questioned whether diversity is maintained, for example. However, few studies have explored appointment processes using institutional approaches to examine whether reforms to such processes have respected key principles, such as merit and accountability.

"What does the concept of "federalism" mean and how does a federation differ from a unitary state? Professors Brock and Hale focus specifically on Canada as an example of a federal state and explain both the characteristics of Canadian federalism and the evolution of the practice of federalism in the decades since "Confederation." Federalism is not exclusively a legal doctrine. It is a method for the conduct of public affairs that combines a constitutional-legal framework with flexible public administration methodologies. It is a method of governing that naturally incorporates practicality and mutual accommodation among layers of government. It is a vehicle of public life that generates its own controversies, difficulties, and indeed, sometimes crises, all of which require resolution through that very methodology of federalism. Professors Brock and Hale explore the most fundamental aspects of, and practices in, the Canadian form of federalism and go on to enlighten all readers about a variety of aspects ofthis form of government."--