Suchergebnisse

"The Senate of Canada is the upper house of its parliamentary system. It is an appointed legislative chamber that has been frequently derided for its apparent lack of effective activity, its failure to represent Canada{u2019}s federal system, and the perceived lack of accountability among its members. Reform of the Senate persists as one of the most contentious issues in the country. Typical reform proposals begin with the assumption that it must become an elected body that primarily represents Canada{u2019}s provinces and can serve as an effective check on the federal government and the House of Commons. This book challenges those assumptions through a thorough analysis that places the Senate within the context of other parliamentary upper houses. It presents a hypothetical constitutional amendment and a proposal for non-constitutional reform that are based upon alternative models derived from that broader context. The book ultimately recommends a Senate that remains unelected but with a more expansive appointment process that more appropriately reflects the optimal role of a parliamentary upper house as well as the diversity, regional aspirations, and political principles of Canadian democracy"--Provided by publisher

The future of continental cooperation within North America remains uncertain. However, if the three principal countries of this continent intend to deepen the ties that have brought them together under the North American Free Trade Agrement, they will need to navigate the process of further international accords, both in terms of treaties and negotiated changes to domestic laws. An important but overlooked feature of this process is the fact that each of the three countries has a federal system different from that of the others in terms of relative overall institutional strenght and degrees of centralization and decentralization. Like the European Union (particularly in relation to the German federal system and the principle of subsidiarity), the North American countries will need to take federalism into account when negotiating and implementing any future legal agreements and institutions among themselves. A strongly centralized federal system with a weak institutional presence can facilitate the negotiation and imposition of new legal arrangements that will provide for further economic and political cooperation. However, a more strongly decentralized system with a stron overall institutional presence (resembling the Canadian model) could potentially provide the impetus for more effective implementation of these legal agreements as well as foster a greater sense of acceptance and involvement in a broader North American community among regions and local communities.

Aspects of Quebec's political and legal system that have been characterized in terms of "collective rights" often rely upon a mischaracterization of that concept, especially in terms of strict definitions of that concept. One result of that mischaracterization is the tendency to perceive the relationship between Quebec and Canada in terms of a conflict between individual and collective rights claims, particularly in relation to language. Those perceptions have resulted in a tendency to identify Quebec as non-liberal and anti-individualist. However, understanding the distinction between group interests (which all liberal societies seek to manage and promote), claims to sovereignty, and a meaningful definition of rights and liberties may reveal a Quebec that is much more liberal and individualist than popular claims and misplaced judicial semantics might, otherwise, indicate.

The Supreme Court of Canada's advisory opinion inReference re Secession of Quebec, 1998(also known, more simply, as the "Quebec reference case") has been the subject of much interpretation and comment, because of its obvious implications for the future of Canada.1However, it offers an arguably wider opportunity to consider the role of the judiciary within a liberal democracy. The professional nature of the legal process and its practitioners often has made legal and judicial institutions, to most of the public, distant and alien components of the political system. The technical aspects of many areas of law (such as contracts, torts, and civil procedure) may, in fact, make this area of public concern seem unapproachable to the average citizen; indeed, some legal practitioners may prefer that the law remain that way. That mystique often is transferred to the realm of constitutional law, where the use of technical terms (including Latin words and phrases) may serve, intentionally or not, to insulate legal arguments and proceedings from public scrutiny.2

The difference between legal terms such as "person" and "human being" represents more than a question of standing or mere semantics. Within liberal democratic societies, such as the United States and Canada, such distinctions may indicate substantive differences regarding fundamental concepts such as citizenship, membership in society, and the scope and essential nature of rights and liberties. In particular, judicial decisions regarding abortion have relied upon such distinctions in order to articulate some of the fundamental issues upon which such controversies are based.