DOCSLIB.ORG

The Patriation of Constitution and Constitutional Democracy: Experience in Canadian Constitution Change

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Patriation of Constitution and Constitutional Democracy: Experience in Canadian Constitution Change ௐ 3 ഇ! ࢱ 83-100! 2019 ѐ/ࡌ؞ཱི !ס έ៉઼ᅫࡁտ؞Ώ! ௐ 15 Taiwan International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 83-100 Autumn 2019 憲政本土化與憲政民主發展－ 加拿大憲法變遷的啟發 ቛخڒ ୶ѯ̂ጯ̳ВҖ߆ጯրࣘЇӄநି଱ ၡ ࢋ ෪ᇈ˘઼࣎छ۞౵੼ఢቑĂ࣐ࡶ઼छ۞౵੼ఢቑυืགྷϤ׎ڱጳ ΁઼छ۞ᄮΞᄃԲࣞ඀ԔĂ၁̙௑Ъϔ͹۞ૄώទᏭĂ1982 ѐͽ݈۞ ጳ߆ώ˿̼۞៍ᕇ΍൴Ăٺΐो̂ӈߏѩּĄώ͛ଂጳ߆ϔ͹ᑕϲૄ ώ˿̼۞តዏ࿅඀ĂͽڱĂଣ੅ጳژតዏү࣎९̶ڱͽΐो̂۞ጳ֭ តዏтңஎ̼ጳ߆ϔ͹Ąڱጳ̈́ តዏڱᙯᔣෟĈጳ߆ώ˿̼ăጳ߆ϔ͹ăጳ ăௐ 3 ഇĞ2019/ࡌ؞ཱིğס Įέ៉઼ᅫࡁտ؞Ώįௐ 15 84 壹、前言 ڼထనᅳгĞdominionğฟؕĂΐो̂ѣ˞г͞ڱଂ 1867 ѐࡻᛳΔ࡚ д 1921 ѐع଀˘઼࣎छᑕѣ۞Ԇፋᝋ˧Ąညߏΐो̂߆פుՎޢநᝋĂ̝ ͵аԆፋ۞γϹᝋć˟ѨפĂଂࡻ઼ޢѨ͵ࠧ̂ጼ˘ٺ࿴ο˞້ཧ઼ᑔć Ăΐो̂ᄃ઼࡚۞߆གྷᙯܼ͟ᔌ૜̷Ă͍׎ߏдགྷᑻ̢೎ᄃ࢕ޢࠧ̂ጼͽ ณொϔ̂۞ޢЪүĂ࠹၆ᄃࡻ઼̝ม۞ᙯܼҋ൒ດֽດழᗓĂГΐ˯ጼְ ڱаጳפ߹ˢĂΐो̂۞઼ᅫᇆᜩ˧͟ৈᘆ̿ĂѩॡĂଂࡻ઼઼ົܛᄃྤ टቤְ̝Ą1982 ѐĂॡЇᓁநՆጆ྽ĞPierre Trudeauğ̙גҋ͹ᝋಶјࠎ ϒёШΐो઼̂ົᄃࡻ઼઼ົ೩΍࣒ጳኛՐĂјࠎΐो̂ጳ߆ώ˿̼۞ᙯ តዏڱΐो̂۞ጳژᔣ˘ՎĄώ͛૟ଂጳ߆ώ˿̼ᄃጳ߆ϔ͹۞ෛ֎Ăଣ གྷរٙ૲ֽ̝ጯ௫ᄃୁ൴Ą 貳、憲政民主與憲政本土化的意涵 ઼̂ڱጳ߆ᄃϔ͹࣎Ҿ࠰ߏᇃࠎˠۢ۞ෟᄬĂҭңᏜጳ߆ϔ͹׸ĉд ጳᝋ۞͹វĂ҃טາࣧ݋Ă઱ѣˠϔ଀ͽүࠎ۞ڼ߆ڱĂቁϲ΍ጳޢࢭ׻ Ăޜᄃጳ߆۞ˠϔ͹វĂಶజࠧؠࠎϔ୉ĞnationğĞᏂ੼ڱጳٺ఺ᇹА ,ᄃጳ߆৩ԔܼϤ඗၆кᇴ઼ϔֽՙؠĞMayoڱ2007ğĄ༊΃ϔ͹Ăࢋቁܲጳ ጳ߆৩۞˯ٺតዏͽ̈́ϲૄڱ1957ğĂ౅࿅পҾкᇴՙ۞ఢ݋ٙ྿ј۞ጳ ϲޙ҃ڱԔĂ݋૟Հ้ШВᙊϔ͹ĞStudlar & Christensen, 2006ğĄֶೈጳ Ăؕࠎጳ߆ϔ͹ĄЯѩĂጳ߆ϔ͹۞ຍஉĂநᑕஉᄏڼጳ߆৩Ԕ۞ϔ͹߆ ଂкᇴᄃ಴ࢦ͌ᇴĞmajority rule and minority rightğĂΪߏ఺჌ϔ͹ૄڇ ଂкᇴڇጳ࿅඀҃జᖎ̼јΪ౺טкᇴՙ۞פࠎ˞ਕૉ఼࿅ଳــώᆊࣃ నࢍĞRanney & Kendall, 1956ğĄڱጳ۞ ˘ጐგдጯநኢᙋ˯Ăѣጯ۰૟ጳ߆ϔ͹Ğconstitutional democracyğ Ձ̶̈́ϲĞrestrained andٲෟෛࠎҋ࠹Ϭ࠼۞௡ЪĂᄮࠎĶጳ߆ķᛃӣ ࢨĞunified andצˠϔ۞ᏴፄĂ҃Ķϔ͹ķ݋෪ᇈ˘࡭̙̈́טdividedğĂࢨ ڱĞself-ruleğćݒ˵ѣጯ۰ᄮࠎĂጳڼunconstrainedğĂֶೈˠϔҋԧ௚ តዏ۞ୁ൴ 85ڱጳ߆ώ˿̼ᄃጳ߆ϔ͹൴णůΐो̂ጳ ,Ğጳ߆ğߏჯ޺ϔ͹ྻү۞ྼᑚఢ݋Ă׌۰̙࠹࿁ࡦĞBellamy & Castiglione кᇴϔி҃֏Ă᝘੓ֽٺOlson, 2007; Tushnet, 2003ğĄҭጳ߆ϔ͹၆ ;1997 ϲ۞ጳ߆ϔ͹Ăಶᑕྍࢋஉޙ˯̝ڱϔ͹ጳٺҬͼ̪ߏநٙ༊൒Ą҃ϲૄ ͹ཌྷĞrule of lawğ̈́ˠϔ͹ᝋĞpopular sovereigntyğĞ Lutz, 2000ğĄڼڱᄏ Ă૟ؼҩ΍Ω˘࣎ጳ߆ϔ͹۞ᙯᔣĂ˵ಶߏጳ߆ޢ༊˯ࢗ۞ࠧؠቁϲ ؠ۞ጳטϤˠϔĞٕϔ୉ğܧώ˿̼Ğpatriation of the constitutionğĄߊ൒ జᄮࠎߏৌϒ۞ጳ߆ϔ͹Ăೱ֏̝Ăጳ߆ώ˿̼ӈࠎڱᄃጳ߆৩ԔĂ൑ڱ ੠Րጳ߆ϔ͹۞ᙯᔣјΑࢋ৵Ą ңᏜጳ߆ώ˿̼ĉѣೀ჌̙Т۞ྋ᝝ෛ֎ĂҭВТ۞ኢᕇౌૻአٺҌ ఢቑ۞ˠϔཏវĂВТՙؠٕԲ̝ࣞĂ఺ߏጳ߆ώ˿̼۞ૄώᅮڱጳצϤ ఢቑĂ˵Ξͽᄲጳ߆ڱՐĄϺӈϤώ઼ˠϔֶፂ઼̰඀ԔĂՙؠ઼छ౵੼ ώ˿̼ಶߏˠϔೠ೪઼छ͹ᝋ۞णனĞKnickerbocker & Nickel, 2016ğĄጳ ᄃΒटĂᕖ̂ྍొם߆ώ˿̼۞౉शĂΞͽ౅࿅࣒ጳ඀Ԕ۞አፋĂᆧΐԁ உᄏˠϔཏវ۞ࠧؠቑಛĞLesson, 2017ğĄٚѩĂ༊΃ϔ͹઼छĂ୬ڱጳ ᄃጳ߆υืώ˿̼۞ૄώ઄ڱϲϔ͹৩ԔĂಶᙱͽࡦᗓጳޙڱ੠Րͽጳ ϲ׍ѣϒ༊ؖૄޙֽ̼˿ώڱछ̏གྷ׍౯ϔ͹পᇈĂ̪ѣᏥጳ઼ܮؠĄӈ ᖂ۞ጳ߆ϔ͹Ą 參、加拿大憲政本土化的歷程 ࿅඀Ăڼаğ͹ᝋ۞߆פߊ൒ጳ߆ώ˿̼޽ঘ۞ߏ˘઼઼̝ϔೠ೪Ğٕ ۞ڱа࣒ԼጳפЯѩͽΐो̂۞གྷរ҃֏Ăώ˿̼۞޽ᇾಶߏਕӎଂࡻ઼ ĂΞͽឰΐो̂ଂ߆ڱؠٕ࣒Լ۞ጳטᝋ˧Ą˘ొԆБϤΐो̂ˠϔҋҖ ன၁Ğlegal realityğĞ Scott, 1982ğĂޠڱன၁Ğpolitical realityğᖼតјࠎڼ ,͹ᝋ۞मҾĞWaltersޠڱ͹ᝋᄃڼϒтᑛౠĞDiceyğٙ֏Ă఺ߏ߆˵ ώڱ2012ğĄ൒҃Ăΐो̂۞ጳ߆ώ˿̼።඀׎၁෹࿅ѺѐĂ҃ͷੵ˞ጳ ࣧҝϔᝋӀ᜕ܲͽٺ၆ੰڱ९ͽ̈́౵੼ڱវ۞តજĂ1960 ѐ۞ΐो̂ˠᝋ តዏ۞જਕ̝˘ĂЯѩிٙ࠰ڱ࣒ጳ඀Ԕ۞ҿՙᄃྋᛖĂౌߏΐो̂ጳ̈́ БᄻĄܧĻĂߏࢦࢋ֧඀༫ݒڱĺ1982 ѐጳ۞ۢ ăௐ 3 ഇĞ2019/ࡌ؞ཱིğס Įέ៉઼ᅫࡁտ؞Ώįௐ 15 86 ϲതϔгĂдޙଣ৶າ̂ౙ֭ثڌ׌઼ౙᜈдΔ࡚ڱỊ̏͵ࡔॡĂࡻ ଀кᇴ۞Δ࡚തϔгĄ1865 ѐĂࡻ઼઼ົͽĺതϔפĂࡻ઼ˠޢۋጼڱࡻ ޠڱ९ĻĞColonial Laws Validity Act, CLVAğֽᗃ୻തϔгڱ˧ड़ޠڱг ᅳгڼ९̚Ăኬ̟ҋڱม۞ड़˧ᙯܼĞBird, 2018ğĄдྍ̝ޠڱͽ̈́ࡻ઼ Ă1867 ѐ 7 ͡ 1 ͟Ăࡻ઼࿴ο۞ĺࡻޢᝋĞClokie, 1942ğĄ׌ѐڱѣࢨ۞ϲ ĻĞBritish North America Act, BNA ActğϠड़Ăజᄮࠎߏΐो̂ڱᛳΔ࡚ ĻĞConstitution Act, 1867ğĂڱĂϺజჍࠎĺ1867 ѐጳڱௐ˘ొϒёጳ۞ ڱٙᔑᅳાጾѣҌ੼൑˯۞ጳ઼ޓࡻ̂ٺҭ༊ॡ۞ࡻ઼઼ົ̪ᄮࠎ׎၆ நֶፂĂݒ֭Ϗኬ̟ΐो̂ಏڼߏΐो̂۞౵੼ڱᝋĂЯѩӈֹࡻᛳΔ࡚ ĞBird, 2018; Meekison, 1999; Sabetti, 1982ğĄט଀ͽซҖ࣒Լ۞፟͞ ࡭࠹ТĂ̰टౌஉᄏ̂ڱĻᄃ༊΃ጳڱಶఢቑඕၹ៍̝Ăĺ1867 ѐጳ ᝋ˧ᕩᛳڼᝋ˧̶ϲă̚δᄃг͞ᝋ˧ထ̶ăૄώᝋӀఢؠĂଘд઼छ௚˞ ׎ٺĂ̪Ϥࡻ઼Ӗͳጾѣ౵੼Җ߆ᝋĂ଱ᝋΐो̂ᓁ༛ҖֹĄ൒҃Ă࠹ྵ˯ ĻҬͼ֭ڱྍ઼۞ጳ߆৩ԔĂĺ1867 ѐጳٺϲ˘࣎ᛳޙֽڱ΁઼छ౅࿅ጳ ăݒڱ࡚Ӏિᓑ֣ጳٺҬ˘Њ̙ᙸТܕϲ˘࣎፾ϲ઼छ۞ຍဦĄՀޙϏពன ͛ІĞAckerman & Charney, 1984ğĄڼຐ૟Ч࠷ĞડાğᓑЪ੓ֽ۞߆˫ ࣒ϒڱߛၹ˭Ăࡻ઼઼ົഅ఼࿅˟Ȉ˘Ѩ۞ΐो̂ጳ۞ڱдࡻᛳΔ࡚ ˠ̀͹ૺĂࡻ઼̙Ξਕົӎ۞ڱ९ĞCameron, 2017ğĄ༊ॡᄮТࡻᛳΔ࡚ ĂڱĂ˵̙ΞਕૻҖ఼࿅˘࣎ΐो̂ˠϔ̙ࢋ۞ጳڱՙΐो̂ˠϔࢋ۞ጳ ,Ϥࡻ઼ͯࢬԼតĞRiddellົ̙ڱΐो̂ˠϔѣ࣒ጳВᙊĂӎ݋ጳܧੵ ఢቑ̰உߏڱĻ۰݋ૻአĂ̙ኢጳڱ1919ğĄጐგтѩĂͅ၆ĺ1867 ѐጳ ඀Ԕ۞ڱĂϤΐो̂ˠϔͽγ۞ˠֽՙؠΐो̂ጳצӎਕజΐो̂ˠϔତ ௑Ъጳ߆ϔ͹۞ࣧநĞChoate, 1916ğĄ̙֭ ९ڱĻ۞଱ᝋĂࡻ઼ᄃΐो̂Тᇹֳѣܲ঻ڱॲፂĺ1867 ѐጳ Ăΐो̂ᓁ༛ޢ९ޠڱĞreservationğ̝ᝋĂ༊ΐो઼̂ົ׌ੰౌ఼࿅ߙี ९Ăڱд׌ѐ̰Բࣞ఺ีعࡻ઼߆ޞΞͽᏴፄТຍăӎՙăٕߏܲ঻ྍ९ඈ ९ĞdisallowanceğڱĻĂࡻ઼ᔘጾѣᅺаڱӎ݋ԛТӎՙć҃ॲፂĺ1867 ѐጳ ९̏གྷϤΐो̂۞઼ົ׌ੰ఼࿅ă֭ͷᒔ଀ᓁ༛ᘪᛳڱᝋĂϺӈ༊ߙี̝ ٺ९ĞAlbert, 2014ğĄϤѩ៍̝Ăࡻ઼઼ົ၆ڱԲࣞĂࡻ઼̪଀ӎՙྍี តዏ۞ୁ൴ 87ڱጳ߆ώ˿̼ᄃጳ߆ϔ͹൴णůΐो̂ጳ ࣒ԼጾѣТຍٕӎՙ۞౵௣ՙؠᝋĂ̙ኢߏ͹જ࣒Լٕߏజ۞ڱΐो̂ጳ ѨϤࡻ઼ӎՙΐो̂۞࣒ጳ˘ޢજаᑕΐो̂۞ኛՐĞScott, 1982ğĂ҃౵ ѺѐϏഅҖֹܲ঻ᝋٕᅺаᝋĂܕ҂۞ߏĂࡻ઼૟ޥਨ९ߏд 1878 ѐĄࣃ଀ ̼˿ᝋĂࠎңݒ̪࡭˧੠Ր˘ొώڱ၁ኳֳѣ፾ϲҋ͹۞ϲٺΐो̂ඈТ ĉڱጳ ၆ѩĂΐो̂ଯજጳ߆ώ˿̼۞જٕ፟ధΞͽྋᛖࠎĈ੠ՐߊࢋѣЪ ĞlegalityğĂ˵ࢋѣϒ༊ّĞlegitimacyğ۞ጳ߆ϔ͹ĞCameron, 2017ğĄّڱ Ăݒّڱఢቑ˭ٙซҖ۞Їң࣒ጳ඀ԔĂᔵ൒׍ѣЪ۞ڱЯࠎдࡻᛳΔ࡚ Яࠎ̪ืΐो̂ˠϔͽγ۞Բࣞ඀Ԕ̙҃׍ѣϔ͹ϒ༊ّĄ Ăΐो̂۞઼ᅫгҜᄃࢦࢋّ͟ৈ೩੼Ă˵Β߁ޢд׌Ѩ۞͵ࠧ̂ጼ ΐˢΐो̂ᓑ֣јࠎௐȈ࣎࠷ЊĂΐो̂۞઼̰γ߆ٺѐ௣ 1949 ٺᜋ܆৸ ᄃጳ߆۞঎ሗ˵෸ֽ෸ૻڱώ˿̼ጳٺԊ๕ౌѣٙᖼតĂ੠Րᛳڼ ĞLederman, 1984ğĄࢵ А ߏ 1927 ѐ۞ᅳ͹ů࠷ЊົᛉĞDominion-Provincial дົᛉ̚٦΍Ϥ઼̰ซҖ࣒ጳ඀ԔܜొڱConferenceğĂΐो̂ᓑ֣Φ ࣒ጳ۞υࢋّזĂЧ࠷ດΐᄮۢޢĞdomestic amending procedureğ۞ᛉᗟ ĞHogg, 1992; Kilgour, 1985ğĂົ̚ϒёٚᄮΐो̂Ч࠷д࣒ጳ࿅඀̚υื થົᛉĞClose, 1985ğĄם۞˯ౙᜈฟ࿅ȈˬಞͽޢజᏙྙĞSabetti, 1982ğĂ̝ Әΐो̂д߆ކѐ۞ĺҘୂъ୧ּĻĞStatute of Westminsterğϒё 1931 ҃ ᝋᄃγϹᝋĞBreton, 1984; Feldstein, 2018ğĂڱ፾ϲĂ֭ͷጾѣҋ͹ϲ۞˯ڼ Ăΐो̂үࠎ˘઼࣎छ۞ᝋ˧͟ᔌԆፋĄдѩТॡĂጳ߆ώ˿̼ٙޢҋѩ̝ ఢቑّĞClokie, 1942ğĄڱٺՀ੼ّڼࢋࢬ၆۞߄ጼĂ߆ Т۞̙פĂ༊ॡ۞࣒ጳົֶፂ࣒Լ۞ቑಛ҃ଳޢЯࠎдҘୂъ୧ּ̝ ඀ԔĈĞ1ğࡶ࣒ጳ̰ट่ঘ̈́ᅳ͹ᝋৈĂ݋Ϥ઼ົซҖ࣒ጳ඀ԔćĞ2ğ ࡶঘ̈́ᅳ͹̈́ొ̶࠷ЊᝋৈĂ݋Ϥᙯܼˠણᄃ࣒ጳćĞ3ğࡶঘ̈́ૄώᝋӀ ˬតજĂυืϤ઼ົᄃЧ࠷ᛉົ˘࡭఼࿅ćĞ4ğ׎ዶ࣒ጳᛉᗟ݋υืགྷϤ ࠷ЊТຍĂТຍ̝࠷Њٙᔑˠ˾υื෹࿅Б઼ᓁˠ˾۞ 55%Ą఺۞˟̶̝ ᘲώ˿̼̳ёķ͈ڱд 1964 ѐజ൴णࠎĶಱႬ࿲ůڱ჌࣒ጳ඀Ԕ۞α̶ ĞFulton-Favreau Patriation FormulağĂݒЯࠎ௣տϏਕᒔ଀ᅾΔҹ࠷Тຍ ୢĄٸ҃ ăௐ 3 ഇĞ2019/ࡌ؞ཱིğס Įέ៉઼ᅫࡁտ؞Ώįௐ 15 88 ѐࢉϠ΍ĶჯкӀֲ̳ёķ 1970 ٺГޢϤ఺჌ኑᗔ۞࣒ጳ̳ёనࢍĂ͟ ĞVictoria Charter FormulağĂдྍ̳ё̚Ăϒё࣒ጳ඀ԔࢋՐੵ˞઼ົ׌ ࡭఼࿅γĂ֭੫၆тңᒔ଀Ч࠷Тຍ҃ࢍზ΍˘इኑᗔ۞̶੨͞˘۞ੰ ˘ёĂᅮࢋТॡ႕֖˭Еˬีᇾ໤̖΃ܑ࣒ጳ९ᒔ଀࠷৺ТຍĈĞ1ğЇң ࣎࠷Њ۞ˠ˾ᇴ෹࿅Б઼ 25%ćĞ2ğҌ͌ࢋѣ׌࣎̂Ҙ߶࠷ЊćĞ3ğҌ ࢋѣ׌࣎Ҙొ࠷Њͷ΃ܑˠ˾ᇴ෹࿅ፋវҘొ࠷Њ۞ 50%Ą׎̚Ă఺ี͌ ё۞ௐ˘࣎ᇾ໤Ă΃ܑᅾΔҹ࠷ᄃщ̂ர࠷ಶ֖ͽ፾ҋӎՙΐो̂۞ጳ̳ ࣒ϒ९Ăтѩ۞ܲᅪ౵௣̪Ϗᒔ଀ᅾΔҹ࠷۞Тຍֹ҃ჯкӀֲ̳ёүڱ ቪĞHogg, 1992ğĄ តዏ۞੼पഇĄ1980 ѐĂᅾΔҹ࠷ڱѐĂߏΐो̂ጳ 1982 זѐ 1980 ԼࢭࢋՐĂឰΐोڱ೩΍۞Ķ͹ᝋඕЪķĞsovereignty-associationğጳع߆ ᄃۤົౝˢՀ̂۞П፟ᄃღૺĞWatts, 1996ğĄྍѐ 10 ͡ 2 ͟Ăΐڼ߆̂ ͛ІĞconstitutional textğĂୁڱШᓑ֣ிᛉੰᅍϹΐो̂ጳعो̂ᓑ֣߆ જ˘րЕ۞࣒ጳ඀ԔĂଯજΐो̂ጳ߆ώ˿̼Ăੵ˞૟࣒ጳᝋଂࡻ઼઼ົ ΐो઼̂ົĂΩγ˵ࢵѨჟቁؠཌྷΐो̂Ч࠷д࣒ጳ඀Ԕ̚۞֎זொᖼа ఺ี࣒ጳ೩९Ăᙒјᄃͅ၆۰̶Ҿд઼ົ̈́ЧٺҒؠҜĞHogg, 1984ğĄ၆ дᓑ֣ણăி׌ੰΡฟ۞ᓑЪ؎ࣶົซҖಡӘॡĂع࠷णฟ၆ϲĂᓑ֣߆ ώ˿̼࣒̈́ԼࠎᗟĞThe Patriation and Amendment ofڱቁгͽΐो̂ጳځ ྍѨ࣒ጳ෦ՐĄځthe Constitution of CanadağĂᄲ ѐ 4 ͡ 8 ͟Ăΐो̂ᓑ֣ிᛉੰ̳ο˞ྭᛨࠁ۞Вᙊ͛Ğall-party 1981 ี˘agreementğĂ҃ 4 ͡ 16 ͟Ăͅ၆ᓁநՆጆ྽೩९۞ˣ࣎࠷ЊĂ˵೩΍ عᓑ֣߆צ९Ğinter-provincial agreementĂྭ࠷ЊВᙊ͛ğĂᙸຍତ͞םԁ ώ˿̼೩९Ăҭυื૟Ч࠷Њ۞ᝋ˧Еˢ࣒ጳ̳ёĂ౵௣ЯᓁநՆڱጳ۞ ൑়҃௣Ą҃צጆ྽̙ᙸତ ఺ี࣒ጳ೩९่ᒔ଀щ̂ர࠷ᄃ৸ο೻ჯҹ࠷۞͚޺Ă׎ዶˣ࠷ٺϤ Ч࠷д༊ॡ۞࣒ጳ඀Ԕ̚ٺ೩੓෦఩ĄϤੰڱĂѣˬ࣎࠷ЊШᓑ֣౵੼̚ Ϗ޺ᜈгд˵عቁĂ҃ͷдѝА۞ጳ߆९ּ̚Ăᓑ֣߆ځણᄃ඀Ԕ̙֭۞ ᕇۋ࡭֍ྋĞHogg, 1992ğĂЯѩྍѨ෦఩۞˘۞ع࣒ጳ࿅඀̚ᇈՐЧ࠷߆ ࣒ϒ೩९υืགྷϤЧ࠷Њ˘࡭఼ڱፂࢋՐጳֶޠڱѣ˟Ĉௐ˘ߏߏӎѣ តዏ۞ୁ൴ 89ڱጳ߆ώ˿̼ᄃጳ߆ϔ͹൴णůΐो̂ጳ ࣒ϒ೩९υืགྷϤЧ࠷Њ˘࡭఼࿅ڱ࿅ĉௐ˟Ăߏӎѣጳ߆ၚּࢋՐጳ ĞHogg, 1984ğĉ ˛Ҿͽ̶ءڱੰڱᕇд 1981 ѐ 9 ͡ 28 ͟ĂϤΐो̂ᓑ֣౵੼ۋ఺ֱ ۰ᄮТჯ᜕ጳ߆ၚޢĂڱă̱̈́ͧˬ఼࿅׌ีࢦࢋ֍ྋĂ݈۰͚޺ጳ˟ͧ ,Ăј ࠎĶώ˿̼Ꮩྙຍ֍ķĞPatriation Referenceğ ĞAlbert, 2015; Ledermanּ ĂӈֹΪѣᒔ଀˭ޘטࣇᄮࠎĂд༊ॡ۞ᓑ֣ءڱੰڱ1984ğĄᓑ֣౵੼ Җֹጳ߆ώ˿̼Ğpatriation ofڱѣЪ̪ع׌࣎࠷Њ۞ВᙊĂᓑ֣߆ ૲ѣҭ३Ă఺჌ጳ߆ώ˿̼۞ᝋ˧Ăυืᒔ଀ܢConstitutionğ۞ᝋ˧ćΪߏ ࠷Њ۞၁ኳТຍĞsubstantial degree of provincial consentğĂӎ݋૟Я࿁ࡦጳ ߆ၚּ҃൑ड़ĞAlbert, 2014; Hogg, 1984; Remillard, 1984; Scott, 1982ğĂ఺ ͘ڼኘҿॸ۞˘჌߆ܔࢦعᄃЧ࠷߆عҿՙజᄮࠎߏૻ࢝ᓑ֣߆ڱΦี ᜈ۞࣒ጳኘҿ̚Ăቁϲΐो̂۞࣒ጳ඀Ԕੵ˞Ϥ઼ົкᇴޢ߱Ă˵̖ਕд ఼࿅γĂᔘࢋགྷ࿅ˬ̶̝˟۞࠷Њ఼࿅Ăͷᙒј࠷̶ٙ΃ܑ۞ˠ˾υืΚ Б઼ˠ˾ᓁᇴ۞ 50%ͽ˯ĞCarins, 1985ğĄ ώ˿̼۞޽͔ĄֶፂĶώڱ֍ྋԛТග̟Նጆ྽ᓁநଯજጳ۞ੰڱ౵੼ ᛉĂੵ˞ᅾΔົڱᏙྙຍ֍ķ۞ࢋՐĂՆጆ྽ᓁநд 11 ͡ 2 ͟Ρฟጳ̼˿ ͡ ВᙊĞCompromise AgreementğĄ11םҹ࠷ͽγ۞˝࣎࠷ЊВТ྿јԁ ୧ഠĞlegislativeڱ଀׌̂ࢦࢋซणĂΐˢᖬᄏϲפĂࣧА۞ͅ၆ࠁ͟ 5 ώĄۍoverride ٕ override clauseğĂͽ࣒̈́ጳ̳ёĂ֭јࠎ౵௣࣒ጳ೩९ ڱጐგтѩĂ఺ีᓑ֣ů࠷ЊВᙊ͛Ğfederal-provincial agreementğᔘߏ൑ ᒔ଀ᅾΔҹ࠷۞ᘪཌĄଣտ׎ЯĂ༊ᅾΔҹˠᛨĞParti Quebecoisğᛏ଀ 1976 ͹ૺ૟عĂઙჯ೻ҹĞRene Levesqueğᅳጱ۞ᅾΔҹ߆ޢѐᅾΔҹ࠷Ᏼᓝ ᄬડ၆ඈ֭ࢦ۞Ķ͹ᝋඕЪķڱᅾΔҹᄃΐो̂ᓑ֣۞ᙯܼࠧؠࠎࡻᄬડᄃ ͡ Ğsovereignty-associationğĂࢬ၆఺ᇹ۞ᑅ˧ĂՆጆ྽ᓁநд 1980 ѐ 5 ၆ᅾΔҹˠϔ̳ฟٚᏚ૟ͽĶາᓑ֣͹ཌྷķĞrenewed federalismğֽ͟ 14 ᄃᅾΔҹ̝ม۞ᙯܼĄ൒҃д 1981 ѐ۞࣒ጳ࿅඀̚ĂᅾΔҹعࢬ၆ᓑ֣߆ ᓑ֣ᄃٺᄬડϔி۞ຍ֍Ăᙯڱ࣒ϒ९ߊϏ಴ࢦڱᄮࠎາ۞ΐो̂ጳع߆ Ч࠷̝ม۞ᝋ˧ထ̶Հ࿁ࡦ˞Նጆ྽ᓁநٚᏚ۞Ķາᓑ֣͹ཌྷķĂЯ҃١ ඗ᘪཌ࣒ጳ೩९ĞHogg, 1984; Meekison, 1999ğĄ ăௐ 3 ഇĞ2019/ࡌ؞ཱིğס Įέ៉઼ᅫࡁտ؞Ώįௐ 15 90 ࣒ϒ९Ă12 ͡ 8ڱѐ 12 ͡ 2 ͟Ăΐो̂ᓑ֣ிᛉੰ఼࿅ྍีጳ 1981 ГϤᓑ֣ણᛉੰ఼࿅Ă఺ีஉᄏᝋӀጳౢᄃٚᄮࣧҝϔᝋӀ۞ΐो̂ጳ͟ ѐ 3 ͡ 29 ͟Ϥࡻ઼઼ົ఼࿅Ą1982 ѐ 4 ͡ 17 ͟Ăࡻ઼̃ͳϿ 1982 ٺĂڱ Ăΐो̂ޢ९ĻĞConstitution Act, 1982ğڱڱఆ௻Ϩ˟͵ᘪཌĺ1982 ѐጳ ҋ͹ᝋĞMeekison, 1999ğĄڱࢵѨጾѣ̙ᅮࢋགྷ࿅ࡻ઼۞ጳ̖ 肆、加拿大憲政本土化的挑戰 ΐो̂ጳ߆ώ˿̼۞።඀ĂॡЇᓁநՆጆ྽Էႊᙯᔣ֎ҒĄ΁ٙଯજ ΐो̂ˠᄮТĞbroaderھᕖ̂ٺ˧ΐो̂ጳ߆ώ˿̼Ăкѐֽజᄮࠎߏ࡭۞ and more inclusive pan-Canadian identityğĂ͍׎ߏᆧΐ۞ĺᝋӀᄃҋϤጳ ౢĻĞCharter of Rights and FreedomsğĞLesson, 2017ğĂТՎࢬ၆ࣧҝϔ ߊߏۤົཏវ۞౵੼ఢቑĂΐो̂۞ڱᝋӀ۞ٚᄮᄃ᜕ܲયᗟĄΪߏጳ ,ĞRemillardܜ޺ᜈតዏᄃјޞإĻ̪ѣధкϏౣ̝఍Ăڱĺ1982 ѐጳ Тॸ୏ኘ۞ᓁܜ1984ğĂЯѩౙౙᜈᜈгΡฟϤᓑ֣ᓁநᄃȈ࣎࠷Њ۞࠷ நᓑЪົᛉĞFirst Ministers’ Conferences, FMCsğĄ൒҃ొ̶ΐो̂ϔி၆ ĞCairns, 1988ğĂޘ޺ኳႷၗٱĻڱᄃ߆ᛨٙ͹ጱ۞ĺ1982 ѐጳعϤ߆ٺ ྋՙΐो઼̰̂хд̏˳۞ᄮТયڱĻ֭՟ѣᏱڱ׎ߏᄮࠎĺ1982 ѐጳ͍ ೩̿гҜ۞͹ૺĞStein, 1997ğĄ1986-87˭ޘטᓑ֣ٺᗟĂͽ̈́Ч࠷ࢋՐ થĂ͍׎ߏтң૟ᅾםШซҖ֕ޘטѐ۞ᓁநᓑЪົᛉĂ੫၆ΐो̂ᓑ֣ 1987 ٺϲ۞ጳ߆৩Ԕ̝˭ĂົᛉඕኢޙĻٙڱΔҹ࠷͔ጱаĺ1982 ѐጳ ,ؠĻĞMeech Lake AccordğĞAlcantaraםѐ 6 ͡ 3 ͟ᘪཌјࠎĺѼݵസ 2013ğĄ ,ᛉĞelite-drivenົܝයࡻ͹ጱ۞ౕڼؠĻజᄮࠎߏ߆םĺѼݵസ closed-doorğĞAlbert, 2015; Stein, 1997ğĂጐგဘྏ̼ྋᅾΔҹ࠷૲΍۞ ᛉ౵௣֭Ϗᒔ଀Бវ࠷Њ˘࡭ТຍĄ၆ѩĂĺѼݵസםયᗟĂҭ఺ีڱጳ నࢍᄃតዏĂ۞ޘטڼШĂ่̙ߏ˘჌߆֕ޘטؠĻᛈ̈́ΐो̂۞ᓑ֣ם Հࢦࢋ۞ߏͅߍ༊ॡᅾΔҹ۞̶ᗓયᗟ֭ར၁Ч࠷πඈࣧ݋Ă̳҃ϔᄃ߆ តዏ࿅඀̚Ă̶Ҿ΃ܑγొĞoutsidersğᄃ̰ొĞinsidersğ׌჌ڱдጳع តዏ۞ୁ൴ 91ڱጳ߆ώ˿̼ᄃጳ߆ϔ͹൴णůΐो̂ጳ ;ຍ֍Ă׌۰̝ม۞རम઱ѣ౅࿅ᕖ̳̂ிણᄃ̖ਕ̼ྋĞCairns, 1988 Swinton, 1992ğĄ ؠĻЯࠎͣ৿Шϔி໛఼҃ጱ࡭εୀ۞ି੊ĂΐोםĺѼݵസ˞פ੃ ֭ޢតዏ඀ԔĂ౵ڱд 1992 ѐͽՀк̮Βट۞̳ฟ੅ኢฟୁາ˘዇۞ጳ̂ ؠĻĞCharlottetown AccordğĄ൒҃Ăࢋར၁к̮ᄃםᘪཌ˞ĺआࠃপݱ ҋ൒೩੼ĂΒӣણᄃ۰Հкăޘથົᛉ۞඀Ԕኑᗔ඀םΒट۞̳ฟ੅ኢĂ ăᏙྙ૞छˠᇴՀкඈĞStein, 1997ğĄھछᛉᗟՀᇃ઼۞ڦᙯ ၆̂ிᇃᇈຍ֍ă̳ฟ੅ኢפથ࿅඀ĂଳםؠĻ۞םጐგĺआࠃপݱ Бវΐो̂ٺĞpublic input, transparent deliberationğ۞͞ёĂ੠Ր˘࣎ᛳ Ըኑՙ̚Ăͽ 54.3%ͅ၆ă45.7%͚޺۞Ըை̳ٺ͛ІĂҭ౵௣̪ڱˠ۞ጳ к̮੅ኢĂ˵Яࠎ۞ܝଳϡ˞ᇃฟ̂ܮజӎՙĞAlbert, 2015ğĄ҃ӈڍඕ ᅾΔҹ࠷ᄃщ̂ர࠷۞ღૺᙯޛથົᛉ҃ϏਕঐםᅾΔҹ࠷৿य˞кᇴ۞ ĺआזؠĻםĞGagnon & Laplante-Lévesque, 2013ğĄЯѩĂଂĺѼݵസܼ តዏ۞඀ԔٕధΞͽଂᇃᇈຍ֍ᄃ̳ฟ੅ڱᜈጳޢؠĻ۞εୀĂםࠃপݱ થͽѣड़гፋם࣒ጳ۞ВᙊĂГ౅࿅යࡻٺኢฟؕĂుՎ጖ჸۤົ̂ி၆ ᕣĂͽ೩੼јΑ۞፟ົĞStein, 1997ğĄܝЪ߆ᛨ˧ณĂ఼࿅࣒ጳԲࣞ ΐो̂ጳ߆ώ˿̼۞Ϗֽ߄ጼĂࢵАࢋࢬ၆തϔ።Ϋᄃᓑ֣͹ཌྷĄΐ ो̂۞ጳ߆ώ˿̼ߏΒӣᗕ̮ᆸѨĂௐ˘ᆸߏΐो̂۞ጳ߆ώ˿̼ĂтТ ᝋ˧Ăௐ˟ᆸ݋ߏ࠷Њ۞ڼШࡻ઼৶а෪ᇈ౵੼௚عࢗϤΐो̂ᓑ֣߆݈ ጳ߆ώ˿̼ĞScott, 1982ğĂּтᅾΔҹĂ1970 ѐ΃ߏᅾΔҹ࠷Шΐो۞ ᝋ˧۞੼पĂ͍׎ߏ 1976 ѐ 11 ͡ĂᅾΔҹˠᛨڼ౵੼௚פۋعᓑ֣߆̂ ,ពĞGagnon & Laplante-LévesqueځՀΐޢĞParti Québécoisğᛏ଀ᅾΔҹ̂Ᏼ 2013ğĄ ѐ۞ĶಱႬ 1964 זಶ።Ϋ៍̝ĂᄃᅾΔҹѣᙯ۞ጳ߆ώ˿̼Ξͽ੠໖ ᘲώ˿̼̳ёķă1970 ѐĶჯкӀֲ̳ёķă1980 ѐĺՆጆ྽ՙ͈ڱ࿲ů ᛉĻĞTrudeau resolutionğĂౌኬ̟ᅾΔҹ࠷ᖬᛉᝋĞveto rightğĞRemillard, ĻĞRegional Veto Lawğڱ1984ğĂ1996 ѐΐो઼̂ົՀ఼࿅ĺડાᖬᛉ ۞ޢ࣒ϒ९Ą҃ڱĞAlbert, 2015ğĂኬ̟Ч࠷Հкᝋ˧ĂΒӣӎՙࢦ̂ጳ ,ᝋ̼ĞdecentralizationğĞWatts̶۞ޘטᓑ֣ٺ˧࣒ϒ९Ăӈ࡭ڱΐो̂ጳ ăௐ 3 ഇĞ2019/ࡌ؞ཱིğס Įέ៉઼ᅫࡁտ؞Ώįௐ 15 92 1996ğĄᖣϤ఺჌ᅮࢋགྷ࿅ᗕᙝԲࣞ۞࣒ጳ඀ԔĞbilateral constitutional amendment processğֽቤ׶ᅾΔҹ̶ᗓྻજĞCameron & Jacqueline, 2008ğĄ ΐो̂ጳ߆ώ˿̼۞Ω˘ี߄ጼಶߏк̮ۤົĄΐो̂۞തϔ።Ϋ૲ થ̚Ăᗕ̮ΐो̂ˠ֗ЊᄮТĞCanadianםڱк̮ϔ୉ۤົĂд።Ѩ۞ጳֽ Dualityğăͽ࠷ࠎಏҜ۞ડા͹ཌྷĞregionalismğăᓑ֣ᄃЧ࠷۞ᝋ˧̶੨ થ࿅඀̚۞ˬ̂҂រםតዏߏӎᅮࢋᗕᙝ۞˘࡭఼࿅ğĂߏڱĞΒӣጳ ĞSabetti, 1982ğĄ˘ਠ҃֏Ăкᇴˠົͽۤົጯ˯۞ϔ୉Ğsociological ϔ୉݋ߏͽЧ࣎ཏវ̝มᝋ۞˯ڼᄮۢк̮ϔ୉ۤົĂ߆ֽهnationsğໄ ͽཏវˠᇴкဿࠎࠧቢĞMcRoberts, 2001ğĄܧ੨۞̙Ӯඈֽડ̶Ă̶҃˧ Էႊឰ͌ᇴϔ୉˵ਕڱĂጳ˭هдк̮ϔ୉઼छĞmultinational stateğ۞ໄ ᄮТ۞ಫ̬Ąдΐो̂ጳ߆ώ˿̼۞࿅඀̚Ăଂͽࡻ઼ࠎ͹វ۞ಏ˘ϔ୉ ९۞ڱࢦ۞ᗕ̮ϔ୉ĞbinationğኢࢗߛၹГགྷϤˠᝋ֭ڱĂ٤ण΍ࡻڱጳ ࣧҝϔૄώᝋӀܲᅪ۞ҿՙĞт Attorney General ofٺ၆ੰڱͽ̈́౵੼ڱϲ ٕ Canada v.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Council of the Federation
    Constructive and Co-operative Federalism? A Series of Commentaries on the Council of the Federation Council of the Federation: An Idea Whose Time has Come J. Peter Meekison* Foreword In 2001 a Special Committee of the Quebec Canada’s Provincial and Territorial Premiers Liberal Party proposed the creation of a Council agreed in July 2003 to create a new Council of the of the Federation.1 Newly elected Quebec Federation to better manage their relations and ultimately to build a more constructive and Premier Jean Charest put this proposal, in cooperative relationship with the federal modified form, before the Annual Premiers government. The Council’s first meeting takes Conference in July 2003. The concept of place October 24, 2003 in Quebec hosted by establishing an institution such as the Council has Premier Jean Charest. been raised before in the context of constitutional reform, particularly in the period between the This initiative holds some significant promise 1976 Quebec election and the 1981 constitutional of establishing a renewed basis for more extensive patriation agreement. More recently the matter collaboration among governments in Canada, but was raised during the negotiations leading to the many details have yet to be worked out and several important issues arise that merit wider attention. 1992 Charlottetown Accord. The purpose of this paper is to examine its antecedents. Others The Institute of Intergovernmental Relations at writing in this series of articles on the Council of Queen’s University and the Institute for Research the Federation (Council) will comment in greater on Public Policy in Montreal are jointly publishing detail on the specifics of the Quebec proposal.
    [Show full text]
  • Formal Amendment of the Constitution of Canada
    Osgoode Hall Law School of York University Osgoode Digital Commons Articles & Book Chapters Faculty Scholarship 1992 Formal Amendment of the Constitution of Canada Peter W. Hogg Osgoode Hall Law School of York University Source Publication: Law and Contemporary Problems. Volume 55, Number 1 (1992), p. 253-260. Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/scholarly_works This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Recommended Citation Hogg, Peter W. "Formal Amendment of the Constitution of Canada." Law and Contemporary Problems 55.1 (1992): 253-260. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles & Book Chapters by an authorized administrator of Osgoode Digital Commons. FORMAL AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA PETER W. HOGG* I IMPERIAL AMENDMENT The British North America Act, 1867 (now the Constitution Act, 1867) differed from the constitutions of other federal countries including the United States and Australia in that it contained no general provision for its own amendment.' The reason for this omission was that the framers were content for amendments to be made in the same way as the BNA Act itself-by the imperial Parliament. Until 1982, that was Canada's amending procedure: amendments to the BNA Act had to be enacted by the United Kingdom (imperial) Parliament. Even in 1931, when the Statute of Westminster conferred upon Canada and the other dominions the power to repeal or amend imperial statutes applying to them, the BNA Act and its amendments were excluded from the new power at Canada's insistence.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Observations on the Queen, the Crown, the Constitution, and the Courts Warren J Newman*
    Some Observations on the Queen, the Crown, the Constitution, and the Courts Warren J Newman* Canada was established in 1867 as a Dominion Le Canada fut fondé en 1867 comme un under the Crown of the United Kingdom, with dominion sous la Couronne du Royaume-Uni, a Constitution similar in principle to that of the avec une constitution semblable en principe à celle United Kingdom. Th e concept of the Crown has du Royaume-Uni. Le concept de la Couronne evolved over time, as Canada became a fully a évolué au fi l du temps, au fur et à mesure independent state. However in 2017, Canada que le Canada est devenu un état entièrement remains a constitutional monarchy within what indépendant, mais en 2017 le Canada demeure is now the Commonwealth, and the offi ces of the une monarchie constitutionnelle à l’intérieur Queen, the Governor General, and the provincial de ce qui est maintenant le Commonwealth et Lieutenant Governors are constitutionally les fonctions de la Reine, du gouverneur général entrenched. Indeed, in elucidating the meaning et des lieutenants-gouverneurs des provinces ont of the Crown, an abstraction that naturally été constitutionnalisées. En fait, en élucidant le gives rise to academic debate and divergent sens de la Couronne, une abstraction qui donne perspectives, it is important not to lose sight of naturellement lieu à des débats théoriques et des the real person who is Her Majesty, given the points de vue divergents, il est important de ne importance that our constitutional framework pas perdre de vue la vraie personne qui est Sa attaches to her role, status, and powers.
    [Show full text]
  • Multiculturalism and Language Rights in Canada: Problems and Prospects for Equality and Unity Terrence Meyerhoff
    American University International Law Review Volume 9 | Issue 3 Article 6 1994 Multiculturalism and Language Rights in Canada: Problems and Prospects for Equality and Unity Terrence Meyerhoff Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/auilr Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Meyenhoff, Terrence. "Multiculturalism and Language Rights in Canada: Problems and Prospects for Equality and Unity." American University International Law Review 9, no. 3 (1994): 913-1013. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University International Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MULTICULTURALISM AND LANGUAGE RIGHTS IN CANADA: PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS FOR EQUALITY AND UNITY Terrence Meyerhoff INTRODUCTION The Parliament of the United Kingdom enacted the Canada Act of 1982' upon request of the Canadian Parliament.2 The Canada Act is Canada's primary constitutional document and, for the first time, em- powered Canada to control its constitutional destiny? With that respon- * J.D., May 1994, Washington College of Law, The American University; M.A. 1989, University of California, Berkeley; B.A. 1986. University of California, Santa Cruz. I would like to thank Thomas 0. Sargentich for his generosity in commenting on earlier drafts of this article and my wife, Monica J. Lowry, for her assistance. 1. CANADA AcT, 1982, ch. 11 (U.K.). 2. See EDWARD MCWHINNEY, CANADA AND THE CONSTITTION 1979-1982: PATRIATION OF THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS 172-73 (1982) (providing text of the final resolution in which Canada requested the Parliament of the United Kingdom Parlia- ment to consent to the passing of the Canada Act).
    [Show full text]
  • A Bill of Rights for the UK?
    House of Lords House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights A Bill of Rights for the UK? Twenty–ninth Report of Session 2007–08 Report, together with formal minutes Ordered by The House of Lords to be printed 21 July 2008 Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 21 July 2008 HL Paper 165-I HC 150-I Published on 10 August 2008 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 Joint Committee on Human Rights The Joint Committee on Human Rights is appointed by the House of Lords and the House of Commons to consider matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases); proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders. The Joint Committee has a maximum of six Members appointed by each House, of whom the quorum for any formal proceedings is two from each House. Current membership HOUSE OF LORDS HOUSE OF COMMONS Lord Bowness John Austin MP (Labour, Erith & Thamesmead) Lord Dubs Mr Douglas Carswell MP (Conservative, Harwich) Lord Lester of Herne Hill Mr Andrew Dismore MP (Labour, Hendon) (Chairman) Lord Morris of Handsworth OJ Dr Evan Harris MP (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West & The Earl of Onslow Abingdon) Baroness Stern Mr Virendra Sharma MP (Labour, Ealing, Southall) Mr Richard Shepherd MP (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills) Powers The Committee has the power to require the submission of written evidence and documents, to examine witnesses, to meet at any time (except when Parliament is prorogued or dissolved), to adjourn from place to place, to appoint specialist advisers, and to make Reports to both Houses.
    [Show full text]
  • The Repatriation of the Constitution & Alternative Dispute Resolution
    THE REPATRIATION OF THE CONSTITUTION & ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION The Failure of Past Constitutional Negotiations and Possible ADR Solutions for the Future Raphael Feldstein Civil Law Section Faculty of Law University of Ottawa TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction CHAPTER I — THE ROAD TO REPATRIATION: HISTORICAL ASPECTS...1 SECTION I — National concerns……………………….…………………….……2 A) Canadian sovereignty…..………..…………………………….……….…...2 B) Individual rights and freedoms .……..….…………………….…………...3 SECTION II —Keeping Quebec in the union…………………….……………..…4 A) October Crisis……………...………………………………….……..……..4 B) Quebec Referendum of 1980………………………………….……..……..5 CHAPTER II — CONSTITUTIONAL NEGOTIATIONS…………….…………..5 SECTION I —The key political players and their conflicting agendas………….5 A. Pierre Elliot Trudeau……………………….……….……...………………6 B. Rene Levesque…………………….…………….……….….………………7 C. Clashing of egos and icons...…...………..…………………………….……7 SECTION II — Constitutional conferences……..………………………………...9 A. Expectations………………………………………………………………..9 B. Organization…………………………………………………………...….10 C. Destined for doom………………….…………………………………......10 SECTION III — The failure of negotiations………….…………….…………....11 A. Downfall of negotiations...………………...….………………………….12 B. Threats of unilateral action……………………….……….12 C) Need for neutral third party intervention…..…………………..……...13 CHAPTER III — SUPREME COURT OF CANADA AND ITS DECISION…...13 SECTION I — Trudeau’s attempt at unilateral action…..………………...……14 SECTION II — Supreme Court reference to amend the Constitution…..……..14
    [Show full text]
  • Bonavero Report 2/2021
    24 June 2021 1 Bonavero Report 2/2021 ABOUT US The Bonavero Institute is a research institute within the Faculty of Law at the University of Oxford. It is dedicated to fostering world-class research and scholarship in human rights law, to promoting public engagement in and understanding of human rights issues, and to building valuable conversations and collaborations between human rights scholars and human rights practitioners. Since opening in October 2017, the Institute has been housed in a new building at Mansfield College. The Institute’s home at Mansfield is central to its identity as inclusive and welcoming, and is an important factor in the Institute’s ability to attract scholars and to host important symposia and conferences. The Bonavero Institute seeks to ensure that the research is of contemporary relevance and value to the promotion and protection of human rights. As part of its mission, the Institute has nurtured a vibrant community of graduate students, hosted outstanding scholars of law and other disciplines, and collaborated with practitioners engaged in the most pressing contemporary human rights issues around the world. The Bonavero Institute adopts a broad definition of human rights law to include international human rights law and practice, domestic human rights, the rule of law, constitutionalism and democracy. The Bonavero Reports Series is the flagship outlet for the scholarship produced at the Institute. It presents cutting-edge research in a straightforward and policy-ready manner, and aims to be a valuable source of information for scholars, practitioners, judges, and policymakers alike on pressing topics of the current human rights agenda.
    [Show full text]
  • “Grab the Signatures and Run”: Federal Unity Strategy in Canada from the Referendum to Patriation
    International Political Sociology (2009) 3, 194–217 ‘‘Grab the Signatures and Run’’: Federal Unity Strategy in Canada from the Referendum to Patriation Neal Carter St. Bonaventure University AND Patrick James University of Southern California Whether as a traumatic event or great accomplishment, the legacy of the First Ministers’ Conference of 1981 lives on in Canadian politics. Consti- tutional negotiations among the prime minister and provincial premiers in 1981 produced the only ‘‘packaged’’ agreement since Confederation to achieve even the minimal support necessary to achieve ratification. The resulting Constitution Act of 1982, which included the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, remains in place and is the principal manifestation of intergovernmental bargaining from over two decades ago. This study reevaluates the strategic interaction and conflict processes that took place between Ottawa and the provinces in negotiations leading up to that fate- ful November 1981 conference. We apply the sociological framework for assessment of the dynamics of identity contention adopted from McAdam, Tarrow, and Tilly (2001) and find tentative support for its prop- ositions. After an overview of the article’s agenda, we present an analytic framework for the study of conflict processes. Second, the background to the constitutional crisis of 1980-81 is summarized. Using the analytic framework, the third section focuses on the federal strategy in the crisis as suggested by minutes from cabinet meetings, and the fourth section examines key events of the First Ministers Conference of November 1981. Fifth, and finally, the contributions of the preceding sections are summed up and ideas are put forward for further research. I remember it was quoted back to me later that Le´vesque said, ‘‘Trudeau screwed me.’’ But the reality was that Rene´Le´vesque was a gambler.
    [Show full text]
  • The Conventions of Constitutional Amendment in Canada
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School Boston College Law School Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School Boston College Law School Faculty Papers Winter 1-1-2016 The onC ventions of Constitutional Amendment in Canada Richard Albert Boston College Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/lsfp Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Richard Albert. "The onC ventions of Constitutional Amendment in Canada." Osgoode Hall Law Journal 53, no.2 (2016): 399-441. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law School Faculty Papers by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Conventions of Constitutional Amendment in Canada Abstract Commentators have suggested that the unsuccessful national referendum to ratify the 1992 Charlottetown Accord created an expectation of popular participation requiring national referendal consultation in major reforms to the Constitution of Canada. In this article, I inquire whether federal political actors are bound by a constitutional convention of national referendal consultation for formal amendments to the basic structure of the Constitution of Canada. Drawing from the Supreme Court of Canada’s Patriation Reference, I suggest that we cannot know whether federal political actors are bound by such a convention until they are confronted with the question whether or not to hold a national referendum in connection with a change to the Constitution’s basic structure.
    [Show full text]
  • Legality, Legitimacy and Constitutional Amendment in Canada Jamie Cameron Osgoode Hall Law School of York University, [email protected]
    Osgoode Hall Law School of York University Osgoode Digital Commons Research Papers, Working Papers, Conference Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper Series Papers 2016 Legality, Legitimacy and Constitutional Amendment in Canada Jamie Cameron Osgoode Hall Law School of York University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/olsrps Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Cameron, Jamie, "Legality, Legitimacy and Constitutional Amendment in Canada" (2016). Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper Series. 175. http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/olsrps/175 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Research Papers, Working Papers, Conference Papers at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper Series by an authorized administrator of Osgoode Digital Commons. OSGOODE HALL LAW SCHOOL LEGAL STUDIES RESEARCH PAPER SERIES Research Paper No. 1 Volume 13, Issue 1, 2017 Legality, Legitimacy and Constitutional Amendment in Canada Yale Law School Conference, April 2016. Jamie Cameron This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2821285 Further information and a collection of publications from the Osgoode Hall Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series can be found at: http://www.ssrn.com/link/Osgoode-Hall-LEG.html Editors: Editor-in-Chief: Carys J. Craig (Associate Dean of Research & Institutional Relations and Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Toronto) Production Editor: Kiana Blake (Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Toronto) Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1 Vol. 13/ Issue. 1/ (2017) Legality, Legitimacy and Constitutional Amendment in Canada Yale Law School Conference, April 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Patriation of the Canadian Constitution: Comparative Federalism in a New Context
    Washington Law Review Volume 60 Number 3 6-1-1985 Patriation of the Canadian Constitution: Comparative Federalism in a New Context William C. Hodge Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons Recommended Citation William C. Hodge, Patriation of the Canadian Constitution: Comparative Federalism in a New Context, 60 Wash. L. Rev. 585 (1985). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol60/iss3/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at UW Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington Law Review by an authorized editor of UW Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PATRIATION OF THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION: COMPARATIVE FEDERALISM IN A NEW CONTEXT William C. Hodge* INTRODUCTION What races will survive World War III? The Chinese and the Qu6bcois. The Chinese because there are so many of them, and the Qu6b6cois because if they've survived the last four hundred years, they'll survive anything. Qu6bec is that part of North America that is so distinct from the rest, and against such odds, that it takes pride in serving to define what a nation is- and can be. -JOEL GARREAU' The Canadian constitution, also known as the British North America Act, 1867,2 has been "patriated." Of that bundle of sticks that, fastened together, constitute sovereign autonomy, a significant few continued to rest with the British Parliament until 1982-a condition the Canadians found humiliating and the British embarrassing.
    [Show full text]
  • National Separation: Canada in Context - a Legal Perspective Kevin Sneesby
    Louisiana Law Review Volume 53 | Number 4 March 1993 National Separation: Canada in Context - A Legal Perspective Kevin Sneesby Repository Citation Kevin Sneesby, National Separation: Canada in Context - A Legal Perspective, 53 La. L. Rev. (1993) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol53/iss4/12 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. National Separation: Canada in Context-A Legal Perspective Table of Contents I. Introduction ........................................................... 1357 II. Background-Canada: Moving Towards Separation ..... 1359 III. The "Right" to Separate: Comparative Constitutional L aw ..................................................................... 1365 A. The Canadian Constitution ............................... 1365 1. By a Province or a Territory ....................... 1367 2. By First Nations ......................................... 1369 B. Analogy to the American and Australian Constitutions .................................................... 1370 1. The United States Constitution ..................... 1371 2. The Australian Constitution ......................... 1373 IV. The "Right" to Separate Under International Law ..... 1375 A. The Role of International Law in the Canadian Schem e ..........................................................
    [Show full text]