DOCSLIB.ORG

Compatibility of the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons with Canada’S Legal Framework and Its International Human Rights Obligations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Compatibility of the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons with Canada’S Legal Framework and Its International Human Rights Obligations ENDING STATELESSNESS STATELESSNESS ENDING Relating To e Status COMPATIBILITY Of Stateless Persons With Canada’s Legal OF THE Framework And Its International Human 1954 CONVENTION Rights Obligations A SPECIAL REPORT Ending STATELESSNESS W Y #IBELONG © United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2015 Researched And Written For UNHCR By Gregg Erauw ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ COMPATIBILITY OF THE 1954 CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF STATELESS PERSONS WITH CANADA’S LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND ITS INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RESEARCHED AND WRITTEN FOR UNHCR BY GREGG ERAUW © United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2015 The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the United Nations or UNHCR. COMPATIBILITY OF THE 1954 CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF STATELESS PERSONS WITH CANADA’S LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND ITS INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 3 Background to the Report .................................................................................................................... 3 The Purpose of the Report .................................................................................................................... 4 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Limitations of the Report ..................................................................................................................... 5 CHAPTER I: GENERAL PROVISIONS ............................................................................................ 7 Article 1: Definition of the term “stateless person” ............................................................................. 7 I. Background & Commentary ...................................................................................................... 7 II. The Canadian Legal Framework .............................................................................................. 8 III. Assessment ............................................................................................................................ 11 IV. Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 13 Article 3: Non-discrimination ............................................................................................................ 14 I. Background & Commentary .................................................................................................... 14 II. Canadian Legal Framework ................................................................................................... 14 III. Assessment ............................................................................................................................ 16 Article 4: Religion .............................................................................................................................. 17 I. Background & Commentary .................................................................................................... 17 II. Canadian Legal Framework ................................................................................................... 17 III. Assessment ............................................................................................................................ 19 CHAPTER II: JURIDICAL STATUS................................................................................................ 19 Article 12: Personal status .................................................................................................................. 19 I. Background & Commentary .................................................................................................... 19 II. Canadian Legal Framework ................................................................................................... 20 III. Assessment ............................................................................................................................ 22 IV. Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 22 Article 13: Movable and immovable property ................................................................................... 23 I. Background & Commentary .................................................................................................... 23 II. Canadian Legal Framework ................................................................................................... 24 III. Assessment ............................................................................................................................ 25 IV. Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 26 Article 14: Artistic rights and industrial property .............................................................................. 26 I. Background & Commentary .................................................................................................... 26 II. Canadian Legal Framework ................................................................................................... 27 III. Assessment ............................................................................................................................ 31 Article 15: Right of association .......................................................................................................... 32 I. Background & Commentary .................................................................................................... 32 II. Canadian Legal Framework ................................................................................................... 33 III. Assessment ............................................................................................................................ 35 IV. Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 36 Article 16: Access to courts ............................................................................................................... 36 I. Background & Commentary .................................................................................................... 36 II. Canadian Legal Framework ................................................................................................... 37 III. Assessment ............................................................................................................................ 40 IV. Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 40 1 i CHAPTER III: GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT .................................................................................... 40 Article 17: Wage-earning employment .............................................................................................. 40 I. Background & Commentary .................................................................................................... 40 II. Canadian Legal Framework ................................................................................................... 42 III. Assessment ............................................................................................................................ 46 IV. Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 47 Article 18: Self-employment .............................................................................................................. 48 I. Background & Commentary .................................................................................................... 48 II. Canadian Legal Framework ................................................................................................... 49 III. Assessment ............................................................................................................................ 52 Article 19: Liberal professions ........................................................................................................... 53 I. Background & Commentary .................................................................................................... 53 II. Canadian Legal Framework ................................................................................................... 53 III. Assessment ............................................................................................................................ 54 CHAPTER IV: WELFARE ................................................................................................................. 55 Article 21: Housing ............................................................................................................................ 55 I. Background & Commentary ...................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Manitoba, Attorney General of New Brunswick, Attorney General of Québec
    Court File No. 38663 and 38781 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (On Appeal from the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal) IN THE MATTER OF THE GREENHOUSE GAS POLLUTION ACT, Bill C-74, Part V AND IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE BY THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL TO THE COURT OF APPEAL UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ACT, 2012, SS 2012, c C-29.01 BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SASKATCHEWAN APPELLANT -and- ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA RESPONDENT -and- ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALBERTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MANITOBA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUÉBEC INTERVENERS (Title of Proceeding continued on next page) FACTUM OF THE INTERVENER, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MANITOBA (Pursuant to Rule 42 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada) ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MANITOBA GOWLING WLG (CANADA) LLP Legal Services Branch, Constitutional Law Section Barristers & Solicitors 1230 - 405 Broadway Suite 2600, 160 Elgin Street Winnipeg MB R3C 3L6 Ottawa ON K1P 1C3 Michael Conner / Allison Kindle Pejovic D. Lynne Watt Tel: (204) 391-0767/(204) 945-2856 Tel: (613) 786-8695 Fax: (204) 945-0053 Fax: (613) 788-3509 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener Ottawa Agent for the Intervener -and - SASKATCHEWAN POWER CORPORATION AND SASKENERGY INCORPORATED, CANADIAN TAXPAYERS FEDERATION, UNITED CONSERVATIVE ASSOCIATION, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC., INTERNATIONAL EMISSIONS TRADING ASSOCIATION, CANADIAN PUBLIC HEALTH
    [Show full text]
  • Immigration Consequences to a Charge of Simple Assault Or Battery Deborah Gonzalez Roger Williams University School of Law
    Roger Williams University DOCS@RWU Law Faculty Scholarship Law Faculty Scholarship 2-2013 Immigration Consequences to a Charge of Simple Assault or Battery Deborah Gonzalez Roger Williams University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://docs.rwu.edu/law_fac_fs Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Immigration Law Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation 61 RIBJ 21 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Faculty Scholarship at DOCS@RWU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of DOCS@RWU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Immigration Consequences to a Charge of Simple Assault or Battery It is never an easy task determining whether an offense of simple assault or battery/domestic in “alien’s” 1 misdemeanor crime of simple assault Rhode Island .4 or battery under RI Gen. Laws § 11-3-5 is an RI Gen. Laws § 11-5-3 states as follows: (a) aggravated felony, a crime of moral turpitude Except as otherwise provided in § 11-5-2, every or a domestic crime of violence according to person who shall make an assault or battery the Immigration Nationality Act. This article or both shall be imprisoned not exceeding one focuses solely on misdemeanor dispositions ,2 year or fined not exceeding one thousand dol - under RI Gen. Laws § 11-5-3/12-29-5, and how lars ($1,000), or both; (b) Where the provisions these dispositions are viewed in the immigration of "The Domestic Violence Prevention Act,” context, as well as the consequences a client may chapter 29 of title 12, are applicable, the penal - face based on a conviction or plea pursuant ties for violation of this section shall also to this statute.
    [Show full text]
  • Alien Removals and Returns: Overview and Trends
    Alien Removals and Returns: Overview and Trends Updated February 3, 2015 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R43892 Alien Removals and Returns: Overview and Trends Summary The ability to remove foreign nationals (aliens) who violate U.S. immigration law is central to the immigration enforcement system. Some lawful migrants violate the terms of their admittance, and some aliens enter the United States illegally, despite U.S. immigration laws and enforcement. In 2012, there were an estimated 11.4 million resident unauthorized aliens; estimates of other removable aliens, such as lawful permanent residents who commit crimes, are elusive. With total repatriations of over 600,000 people in FY2013—including about 440,000 formal removals—the removal and return of such aliens have become important policy issues for Congress, and key issues in recent debates about immigration reform. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides broad authority to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to remove certain foreign nationals from the United States, including unauthorized aliens (i.e., foreign nationals who enter without inspection, aliens who enter with fraudulent documents, and aliens who enter legally but overstay the terms of their temporary visas) and lawfully present foreign nationals who commit certain acts that make them removable. Any foreign national found to be inadmissible or deportable under the grounds specified in the INA may be ordered removed. The INA describes procedures for making and reviewing such a determination, and specifies conditions under which certain grounds of removal may be waived. DHS officials may exercise certain forms of discretion in pursuing removal orders, and certain removable aliens may be eligible for permanent or temporary relief from removal.
    [Show full text]
  • Migrant Workers: Precarious and Unsupported
    Conseil canadien pour les réfugiés Canadian Council for Refugees Bill C-6 An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act Submission of the Canadian Council for Refugees April 2016 Canadian Council for Refugees Introduction The Canadian Council for Refugees welcomes the introduction of amendments to the Citizenship Act through Bill C-6, reversing many provisions of Bill C-24, the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act that we opposed.1 The CCR also commends the new government for making this a priority piece of legislation. Bill C-6 provides an excellent opportunity to create an inclusive citizenship regime that promotes maximum civic participation and engagement. We need to bring down barriers to citizenship, especially for already disadvantaged groups such as refugees, the elderly, and women. In line with Canada’s international obligations, we encourage the government to craft a new citizenship regime to which all applicants will have equal access without discrimination. Canada has a legal obligation to facilitate access to citizenship for refugees: “The Contracting States shall as far as possible facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of refugees. They shall in particular make every effort to expedite naturalization proceedings and to reduce as far as possible the charges and costs of such proceedings.” (Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, Article 34). Access to nationality and citizenship is an important factor in the participation of newcomers in the political process. Participation in the political process, in turn, increases the sense of belonging and identification with the immigrants’ new country. At present, non-citizens in Canada are unable to vote in federal, provincial/territorial, and municipal elections.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Law of Canada Student Edition
    Constitutional Law Of Canada Student Edition Wyatt usually chloridizing fecklessly or birles ghastly when semi Torin renormalizing aristocratically and revengingly. Unexplored and ranking Anurag Nazifies her harmonisation brocade or minglings spectacularly. Anaglyphic Wilburt foretastes that reportage disfeatured moronically and stalemated esthetically. Formerly known as constitutional law exchange student edition is researched; how i can. It has occurred with the constitution. It is constitutional law journal of canada supreme court of parliament of rules. Setting and constitutional law is their laws that canada student edition i can assert their legal work. Procedure pertaining to students have the law principles, canada dedicated to have jurisdiction. This is admissible as well it is a dominion of laws from decisions of prof. Though your constitutional courts. Curbside pick up enhances your own affairs of law of constitutional canada student edition of canada in this edition i get this guiding principle of parliament, signature and such as to its general rule, federalism and discussions of different court. But that law is constitutional law of laws that this edition of pei; and domestic lawand above. You continue with its publications. Please select some dimensions of canada justice in a constitution by one order even be. Your books you guess which provide a new edition of the federal court may see its rulings and individuals do not be admitted into french and negotiation, where our constitutional la. The Constitution of Canada A Contextual Analysis. The public power has now explicitly recognizes legal information. Make the constitutional matters of canada includes the book agency, unless a real one.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Naturalization Policy
    U.S. Naturalization Policy Updated May 3, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R43366 U.S. Naturalization Policy Summary Naturalization is the process that grants U.S. citizenship to lawful permanent residents (LPRs) who fulfill requirements established by Congress and enumerated in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). In general, U.S. immigration policy gives all LPRs the opportunity to naturalize, and doing so is voluntary. To qualify for citizenship, LPRs in most cases must have resided continuously in the United States for five years, show they possess good moral character, demonstrate English language ability, and pass a U.S. government and history examination, which is part of their naturalization interview. The INA waives some of these requirements for applicants over age 50 with 20 years of U.S. residency, those with mental or physical disabilities, and those who have served in the U.S. military. Naturalization is often viewed as a milestone for immigrants and a measure of their civic and socioeconomic integration to the United States. Naturalized immigrants gain important benefits, including the right to vote, security from deportation in most cases, access to certain public-sector jobs, and the ability to travel with a U.S. passport. U.S. citizens are also advantaged over LPRs for sponsoring relatives to immigrate to the United States. During the past three decades, the number of LPRs who submitted naturalization applications has varied over time, ranging from a low of about 207,000 applications in FY1991 to a high of 1.4 million in FY1997. In FY2020, 967,755 LPRs submitted naturalization applications.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitution of Canada and the Conflict of Laws
    Osgoode Hall Law School of York University Osgoode Digital Commons PhD Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 2001 The onsC titution of Canada and the Conflict of Laws Janet Walker Osgoode Hall Law School of York University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/phd Part of the Conflict of Laws Commons, and the Jurisdiction Commons Recommended Citation Walker, Janet, "The onC stitution of Canada and the Conflict of Laws" (2001). PhD Dissertations. 18. http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/phd/18 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in PhD Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Osgoode Digital Commons. THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA AND THE CONFLICT OF LAWS Janet Walker A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Worcester College Trinity Term 2001 The Constitution of Canada and the Conflict of Laws Janet Walker, Worcester College Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, Trinity Term 2001 This thesis explains the constitutional foundations for the conflict of laws in Canada. It locates these constitutional foundations in the text of key constitutional documents and in the history and the traditions of the courts in Canada. It compares the features of the Canadian Constitution that provide the foundation for the conflict of laws with comparable features in the constitutions of other federal and regional systems, particularly of the Constitutions of the United States and of Australia. This comparison highlights the distinctive Canadian approach to judicial authority-one that is the product of an asymmetrical system of government in which the source of political authority is the Constitution Act and in which the source of judicial authority is the continuing local tradition of private law adjudication.
    [Show full text]
  • Claims by Non-Citizens Under the Americans with Disabilities Act: Proper Extraterritorial Application in Torrico V
    Pace International Law Review Volume 17 Issue 1 Spring 2005 Article 6 April 2005 Claims by Non-Citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act: Proper Extraterritorial Application in Torrico v. International Business Machines Michelle Shender Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pilr Recommended Citation Michelle Shender, Claims by Non-Citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act: Proper Extraterritorial Application in Torrico v. International Business Machines, 17 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 131 (2005) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pilr/vol17/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace International Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CASENOTE CLAIMS BY NON-CITIZENS UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT: PROPER EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION IN TORRICO V. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES Michelle Shendert I. Introduction ....................................... 131 II. History of ADA's Extraterritorial Application and the Law Today .................................... 134 III. Presentation of Case .............................. 144 IV . Analysis ........................................... 152 V . Conclusion ......................................... 157 I. INTRODUCTION The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq., 1 (ADA) protects the civil rights of disabled indi- viduals by making it unlawful to "discriminate against a quali- fied individual with a disability because of the disability... in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment."2 Specifically, Title I of the ADA requires an employer to provide "reasonable accommodations" 3 for a "qualified individual's" 4 im- pairments or limitations unless doing so would cause an "undue t The author received her J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Primer on U.S. Immigration Policy
    Primer on U.S. Immigration Policy Updated July 1, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45020 SUMMARY R45020 Primer on U.S. Immigration Policy July 1, 2021 U.S. immigration policy is governed largely by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which was first codified in 1952 and has been amended significantly several times since. U.S. William A. Kandel immigration policy contains two major aspects. One facilitates migration flows into the United Analyst in Immigration States according to principles of admission that are based upon national interest. These broad Policy principles currently include family reunification, U.S. labor market contribution, origin-country diversity, and humanitarian assistance. The United States has long distinguished permanent from temporary immigration. Permanent immigration occurs through family and employer-sponsored categories, the diversity immigrant visa lottery, and refugee and asylee admissions. Temporary immigration occurs through the admission of foreign nationals for specific purposes and limited periods of time, and encompasses two dozen categories that include foreign tourists, students, temporary workers, and diplomats. The other major aspect of U.S. immigration policy involves restricting entry to and removing persons from the United States who lack authorization to be in the country, are identified as criminal aliens, or whose presence in the United States is determined to not serve the national interest. Such immigration enforcement is broadly divided between border enforcement—at and between U.S. land, air, and sea ports of entry—and other enforcement tasks including interior enforcement, detention, removal, worksite enforcement, and combatting immigration fraud. The dual role of U.S. immigration policy—admissions and enforcement—creates challenges for balancing major policy priorities, such as ensuring national security, facilitating trade and commerce, protecting public safety, and fostering international cooperation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Legality of an Independent Quebec: Canadian Constitutional Law and Self-Determination in International Law Marc A
    Boston College International and Comparative Law Review Volume 3 | Issue 1 Article 6 12-1-1979 The Legality of an Independent Quebec: Canadian Constitutional Law and Self-Determination in International Law Marc A. Thibodeau Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Marc A. Thibodeau, The Legality of an Independent Quebec: Canadian Constitutional Law and Self-Determination in International Law, 3 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 99 (1979), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr/vol3/iss1/6 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College International and Comparative Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Legality of an Independent Quebec: Canadian Constitutional Law and Self­ Determination in International Law I. INTRODUCTION Since the signing of the Treaty of Paris (Treaty) on February 10, 1763,1 which formalized the British position in Canada and in other lands on the North American continent,2 members of the French-Canadian community, 1. Definitive Treaty of Peace Between France, Great Britain and Spain, Feb. 10, 1763, Great Britain-France-Spain, 42 Parry's T.S. 320. The Treaty settled various territorial disputes at the conclusion of the War of 1756-63 (Seven Year's War). As part of the settlements, the King of France ceded to Great Britain all of its possessions in Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • University Sponsorship of Foreign National Employees
    University Sponsorship of Foreign National Employees Category: Operations Responsible Department: General Counsel Responsible Officer: Vice President and General Counsel Effective Date: 3/14/2016 Policy Summary This policy sets forth the University guidelines regarding sponsorship of foreign nationals for temporary employment visas and/or applications for permanent residency based upon permanent employment within the United States. This policy does not apply to non-immigrant student visas (F- 1) or exchange visitor visas (J-1). These visas are administered by the director of the International Students Office. Scope This policy affects the following groups of the University: • Executive Offices • Assoc. / Assist Vice Presidents • Full-Time Staff • Part-Time Staff • Full-Time Faculty • Part-Time Faculty • Vice Presidents • Deans • Directors/Department Chairs This policy applies to all faculty and staff members involved in the sponsorship and employment of foreign nationals. Policy To establish a uniform process whereby DePaul University will sponsor non-immigrants for temporary employment authorization and/or with applications for permanent residency based on permanent employment in the United States. This process must comply with current immigration Page 1 of 5 laws and regulations promulgated by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the U.S. Department of Labor, and other pertinent federal agencies. Given the rapidly changing nature of immigration law, aspects of this Policy relating to the law and its effect on an individual faculty or staff member's case may change without notice. The University is committed to a diverse workforce. Under certain circumstances as outlined below, the University will sponsor foreign nationals for temporary employment-based visas and/or for lawful permanent residency based on permanent employment in the United States.
    [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]