DOCSLIB.ORG

Przewodnik Po Konstytucji Kanady Część Pierwsza Akt Konstytucyjny Z 1867 Roku

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Przewodnik Po Konstytucji Kanady Część Pierwsza Akt Konstytucyjny Z 1867 Roku Przewodnik po konstytucji Kanady Część pierwsza Akt Konstytucyjny z 1867 roku ^ Gabryś I.indb 1 2018-02-14 13:41:32 104 ^ Gabryś I.indb 2 2018-02-14 13:41:32 Marcin Gabryś Przewodnik po konstytucji Kanady Część pierwsza Akt Konstytucyjny z 1867 roku KSIĘGARNIA AKADEMICKA Sp. z o.o. Kraków Kraków 2016 ^ Gabryś I.indb 3 2018-02-14 13:41:32 © Marcin Gabryś, Kraków 2016 Recenzent: dr hab. Paweł Laidler, prof. UJ Opracowanie redakcyjne: Ewa Dąbrowska Projekt okładki: Paweł Sepielak Dofinansowano ze środków Wydziału Studiów Międzynarodowych i Politycznych Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego ISBN 978-83-7638-833-5 KSIĘGARNIA AKADEMICKA ul. św. Anny 6, 31-008 Kraków tel./faks: 12 431 27 43, 12 421 13 87 e-mail: [email protected] www.akademicka.pl ^ Gabryś I.indb 4 2018-02-14 13:41:32 Spis treści Wprowadzenie ...................................................................................................................... 7 Zarys historii konstytucjonalizmu kanadyjskiego .......................................................... 15 Akt Konstytucyjny z 1867 roku ......................................................................................... 29 I. Wstęp ...................................................................................................................... 31 II. Unia ......................................................................................................................... 32 III. Władza wykonawcza ............................................................................................. 34 IV. Władza ustawodawcza .......................................................................................... 50 V. Konstytucje prowincji ........................................................................................... 88 VI. Podział władzy ustawodawczej ............................................................................ 101 VII. Sądownictwo .......................................................................................................... 162 VIII. Dochody, długi, aktywa, podatki ........................................................................ 176 IX. Postanowienia różne ............................................................................................. 186 X. Kolej międzykolonialna ........................................................................................ 199 XI. Przyjęcie innych kolonii ....................................................................................... 199 Załącznik 1 ...................................................................................................................... 202 Załącznik 2 ...................................................................................................................... 208 Załącznik 3 ...................................................................................................................... 209 Załącznik 4 ...................................................................................................................... 210 Załącznik 5 ...................................................................................................................... 212 Załącznik 6 ...................................................................................................................... 213 Bibliografia ........................................................................................................................... 215 Indeks nazwisk ..................................................................................................................... 237 ^ Gabryś I.indb 5 2018-02-14 13:41:32 ^ Gabryś I.indb 6 2018-02-14 13:41:32 Wprowadzenie Kanada jest krajem wyjątkowym w kwestii rozwiązań ustrojowych. Z jednej stro- ny kopiuje parlamentaryzm westminsterski, co oznacza, że najważniejsze zasady ustrojowe oparte są na niepisanych regułach zawartych w konwenansach konsty- tucyjnych. Z drugiej strony brytyjski model ustrojowy został zmodyfikowany, gdy w 1867 r. sformalizowano unię kolonii w Ameryce Północnej. Zasady podziału wła- dzy między poszczególnymi jej poziomami zostały wtedy uregulowane w pisanym dokumencie o charakterze konstytucyjnym, dla którego wzorem była konstytucja Stanów Zjednoczonych Ameryki. Ustrój Kanady jest więc hybrydą, oryginalnym połączeniem zasad ustrojowych zbliżonych do amerykańskich oraz rozwiązań kon- stytucyjnych, których źródłem jest Wielka Brytania. Przez kilkanaście dekad oba systemy docierały się, co doprowadziło do powstania często unikalnych rozwiązań: asymetrycznego federalizmu czy połączenia zasady supremacji parlamentu z supre- macją konstytucji1. Co ważne, zmiany ustrojowe przebiegały w sposób ewolucyjny – oznaczało to zachowywanie często już archaicznych procedur i powolne wypełnia- nie ich nową treścią. Dopiero po 115 latach Kanadyjczycy mogli wszystkie kwestie ustrojowe rozwiązywać bez potrzeby udziału – nawet symbolicznego – dawnej me- tropolii w Londynie. Patriacja (patriation) konstytucji dokonana w 1982 r. nie ozna- cza jednak końca przemian ustroju Kanady. W dalszym ciągu system konstytucyjny podlega istotnym modyfikacjom, które – co ciekawe – zachodzą, mimo że formalna nowelizacja pisanej konstytucji jest niezwykle trudna politycznie, o czym Kanadyj- czycy przekonali się już dwukrotnie po 1982 r., gdy upadały kompleksowe projekty 1 Choć pod względem konstytucyjnym autonomia Quebecu nie jest większa niż pozostałych prowincji, to faktyczny jej zakres jest dużo bardziej rozległy. Kanadyjskie podejście łączące zasadę supremacji parlamentu z zasadą supremacji konstytucji ustanawia kompromis, co jest jedną z cech typowych dla charakteru Kanadyjczyków. T. Wieciech, Ustroje federalne Stanów Zjednoczonych, Kanady i Australii, Kraków 2009, s. 167-173; C. Bélanger, Supremacy of Par- liament and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 2001, [online:] http://faculty.maria- nopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/federal/parl.htm – 16 VIII 2014. Więcej na ten temat piszę w rozdziale Zarys historii konstytucjonalizmu kanadyjskiego. 7 ^ Gabryś I.indb 7 2018-02-14 13:41:32 Wprowadzenie zmian2. Przykładem jest powstawanie innowacyjnych instytucji samorządowych wśród ludności rdzennej, przede wszystkim w północnych i zachodnich częściach kraju3, ale bez wątpienia największy wpływ na zmiany ustrojowe w Kanadzie ma nacjonalizm quebecki4. Kanada do dzisiaj pozostaje państwem, którego system konstytucyjny jest kontestowany przez część sił politycznych. Różnice w spojrzeniu sięgają korze- ni powstania Dominium Kanady i dotyczą fundamentalnego sporu, czy w czasie konfederacji zawiązano umowę pomiędzy dwoma narodami założycielskimi, fran- ko- i anglofonami, czy – jak chce anglojęzyczna większość Kanadyjczyków – było to porozumienie między równymi prowincjami. Spór jest odbiciem niezwykle silnego poczucia odrębności i wewnętrznej wspólnoty poszczególnych prowincji. Dotyczy to zwłaszcza Quebecu, ale jest do pewnego stopnia prawdziwe również w odniesieniu do wszystkich prowincji, szczególnie tych położonych na zachodzie. To jeden z czynników odpowiedzialnych za głęboką decentralizację federacji ka- nadyjskiej, co paradoksalnie stoi w sprzeczności z oryginalnymi założeniami twór- ców kanadyjskiej konstytucji5. Jednak mimo że w debatach politycznych w Ka- nadzie różnice pomiędzy stronami na temat fundamentalnych kwestii mogą być niezwykle silne, ich uczestnikom udaje się znaleźć sposób na kontynuację współ- pracy. Uznaje się bowiem istnienie nienaruszalnych pryncypiów, a przywiązanie i szacunek do nich nie podlegają negocjacji6. Kanada wymyka się więc ortodoksyj- nym podziałom, a jej konstytucja pozostaje dziełem w fazie ciągłego powstawania, które nie nabrało ostatecznej formy. Odbiciem tego faktu jest częsty brak precyzji w pisanych częściach konstytucji czy pozostawianie w niej archaicznych, niesto- sowanych już, a czasem nawet wprowadzających w błąd zapisów. Warto w tym miejscu przytoczyć słowa Stéphane’a Diona, profesora nauk politycznych, byłego 2 Chodzi o porozumienia z Meech Lake (1987) i Charlottetown (1992). Więcej zob. M. Gabryś, Polityka wewnętrzna Kanady. Patriacja konstytucji, Quebec, rdzenni mieszkańcy, [w:] M. Ga- bryś [et al.], Kanada na przełomie XX i XXI wieku. Polityka, społeczeństwo, edukacja, red. M. Kijewska-Trembecka, Kraków 2013, s. 15-96, Societas, 79. Por. I. Wrońska, Kanadyj- ski system federalny. Determinanty i tendencje / Canadian Federal System. Determinants and Trends, Kielce 2011, s. 34-37. 3 Więcej na ten temat zob. M. Gabryś, Polityka wewnętrzna Kanady…, s. 189-218. 4 W Quebecu odbyły się dwa referenda (w latach 1980 i 1995), których celem (nie zawsze wska- zanym expressis verbis) było uzyskanie zgody na rozpoczęcie procedury odłączenia się od Ka- nady. Więcej zob. M. Kijewska-Trembecka, Québec i Québécois. Ideologie dążeń niepodle- głościowych, Kraków 2007, s. 199-247, Prace Amerykanistyczne Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. 5 Więcej na ten temat piszę w komentarzu do rozdziału VI Aktu Konstytucyjnego z 1867 r. 6 J. E. Fossum, Book Review: Jeremy Webber: The Constitution of Canada. A Contextual Analysis. Hart Publishing, Oxford 2015, „No Foundations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Law and Jus- tice” 2015, Vol. 12, s. 154-155, [online:] http://www.nofoundations.com/issues/NoFo12_2015. pdf – 10 XII 2015. 8 ^ Gabryś I.indb 8 2018-02-14 13:41:32 Wprowadzenie ministra i byłego lidera Partii Liberalnej: „Kanada jest państwem, które działa le- piej w praktyce niż w teorii”7. Pomysł na książkę będącą przewodnikiem po konstytucji Kanady zrodził się w czasie prac nad podręcznikiem Kanada na przełomie XX
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Constitutionalism and the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act Reference Shannon Hale* and Dwight Newman, QC**
    31 Constitutionalism and the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act Reference Shannon Hale* and Dwight Newman, QC** I. Introduction In the July 10, 2020 decision in Reference re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act (GNDA Reference),1 the Supreme Court of Canada arrived at a complex three-to-two-to-four outcome, with a slim five-justice majority in two separate judgments upholding challenged portions of the fed- eral Genetic Non-Discrimination Act (GNDA)2 as a valid exercise of Parliament’s criminal law power. The legislation, which some thought fundamentally oriented to the goal of preventing genetic discrimination, seemed to have attractive policy objectives, though we will ultimately suggest that the form of the legislation was not entirely in keeping with these aims. While it may have appeared pragmatically attractive to uphold the legislation, we suggest that the majority’s decision to do so comes at great cost to basic federalism principles, to legal predict- ability, and to prospects for well-informed intergovernmental cooperation. We argue that the courts must properly confine the effects of the GNDA Reference in accordance with established principles on the treatment of fragmented judicial opinions. We also argue that the courts must take significant steps to ensure that federalism jurisprudence remains well-grounded in legal principle, without the actual or apparent influence of extra-legal policy considerations. * BA, MSc, JD, Member of the Ontario bar. Research Associate, University of Saskatchewan College of Law (September 2020 to December 2020 term). ** BA, JD, BCL, MPhil, DPhil, Member of the Ontario and Saskatchewan bars. Professor of Law & Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Rights in Constitutional and International Law, University of Saskatchewan College of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • WWF-Canada Past Chairs 11
    World Wildlife Fund Canada Annual Report 2008 A YEAR LIKE NO OTHER 1 Letter to the Public 1 Who We Are 3 How We Work 3 Legitimacy 4 OUR PEOPLE 6 Board of Directors 7 Board of Directors — Structure and Governance 8 Committees 8 Senior Staff 10 Senior Staff Reporting to the CEO 10 Other Senior Staff 10 WWF-Canada Past Chairs 11 REPORT OF THE CHIEF CONSERVATION OFFICER 12 KEY REGIONS 14 Northwest Atlantic Ecoregion 15 Great News for the Grand Banks 16 Northeast Pacific Ecoregion 17 And Bowie Seamount Makes Seven 18 The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and WWF-Canada: Partners in Marine Conservation 18 Washington Marine Group and WWF-Canada: Protecting the Pacific Together 19 Mackenzie River Basin 19 Big Wins in the Mackenzie Basin 20 In Memory of a Friend: Robbert Hartog 21 Greater Antilles Marine Ecoregion 22 A Crucial Part of the Equation 23 KEY ISSUES 25 Marine Issues 26 Big Picture Thinking: It’s Time to “Scale Up” 27 Freshwater Issues 28 A Decade in the Making 29 A Partnership for Fresh Water: WWF-Canada and Coca-Cola 29 Forests for Life 30 The 25-Million-Hectare Milestone 31 Erin Hogg: Good Friend of Forests, Good Friend of the Planet 32 Climate Change 33 Putting Energy into Efficiency 34 HP: Targeting Greenhouse Gas Emissions 35 Endangered Species 36 To Hell in a Handbag 37 Our Footprint 38 OUR SUPPORTERS 40 Spectacular Events 41 Earth Hour 41 Business of Climate Change II: From Theory to Practice 41 Green Living Show 42 Canada Life CN Tower Climb 42 You Make It Possible 43 Donor Profiles 52 Beryl Ivey 52 Peggy Lawson 53 Please Contact Us! 54 FINANCIAL STEWARDSHIP FOR THE LONG TERM 55 Report of the Vice-President, Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer 57 Financial Statements 58 Additional Financial Information 60 A YEAR LIKE NO OTHER Letter to the Public While 2007 marked WWF-Canada’s 40th anniversary — a testament to our longevity and commitment — 2008 may well go down in our organization’s history as a year of transformational achievement.
    [Show full text]
  • A Challenging Wine Trade, Part 2 Chris Wilson
    A challenging wine trade, part 2 Chris Wilson 1 External and internal trade challenges B.C., Ontario, Quebec, Nova WTO Challenges Scotia and Federal measures Comeau The Hicken Report (Interprovincial trade) 3 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Article III:1 (internal taxes) 1. The contracting parties recognize that internal taxes and other internal charges, and laws, regulations and requirements affecting the internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, transportation, distribution or use of products, and internal quantitative regulations requiring the mixture, processing or use of products in specified amounts or proportions, should not be applied to imported or domestic products so as to afford protection to domestic production. 3 4 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Article III:4 (national treatment) The products of the territory of any contracting party imported into the territory of any other contracting party shall be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to like products of national origin in respect of all laws, regulations and requirement affecting their internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, transportation, distribution or use. 4 5 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Article XVII:1 (state trading enterprises) Each contracting party undertakes that if it establishes or maintains a State enterprise, wherever located, or grants to any enterprise, formally or in effect, exclusive or special privileges,* such enterprise shall, in its purchases or sales involving either imports or exports, act in a manner consistent with the general principles of non-discriminatory treatment prescribed in this Agreement for governmental measures affecting imports or exports by private traders. 5 6 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Article XXIV:12 (regional governments) Each contracting party shall take such reasonable measures as may be available to it to ensure observance of the provisions of this Agreement by the regional and local governments and authorities within its territories.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    THE SUPREME COURT’S STRANGE BREW: HISTORY, FEDERALISM AND ANTI-ORIGINALISM IN COMEAU Kerri A. Froc and Michael Marin* Introduction Canadian beer enthusiasts and originalists make unlikely fellow travellers. However, both groups eagerly awaited and were disappointed by the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R v Comeau.1 The case came to court after Gerard Comeau was stopped and charged by the RCMP in a “sting” operation aimed at New Brunswickers bringing cheaper alcohol from Quebec across the provincial border to be enjoyed at home.2 Eschewing Gerard Comeau’s plea to “Free the Beer”, the Court upheld as constitutional provisions in New Brunswick’s Liquor Control Act, which made it an offence to possess liquor in excess of the permitted amount not purchased from the New Brunswick Liquor Corporation.3 The Court’s ruling was based on section 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which states that “[a]ll articles of Growth, Produce, or Manufacture of any one of the Provinces…be admitted free into each of the other Provinces.”4 In the Court’s view, this meant only that provinces could not impose tariffs on goods from another province. It did not apply to non-tariff barriers, like New Brunswick’s monopoly on liquor sales in favour of its Crown corporation. In so deciding, the Court upheld the interpretation set out in a nearly 100-year-old precedent, Gold Seal Ltd v Attorney- General for the Province of Alberta,5 albeit amending its interpretation of section 121 to prohibit both tariffs and “tariff-like” barriers. The Supreme Court also criticized the trial judge’s failure to respect stare decisis in overturning this precedent.
    [Show full text]
  • 225 Watertight Compartments: Getting Back to the Constitutional Division of Powers I. Introduction
    GETTING BACK TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DIVISION OF POWERS 225 WATERTIGHT COMPARTMENTS: GETTING BACK TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DIVISION OF POWERS ASHER HONICKMAN* This article offers a fresh examination of the constitutional division of powers. The author argues that sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 establish exclusive jurisdictional spheres — what the Privy Council once termed “watertight compartments.” This mutual exclusivity is emphasized and reinforced throughout these sections and leaves very little room for legitimate overlap. While some degree of overlap is permissible under this scheme — particularly incidental effects, genuine double aspects, and limited ancillary powers — overlap must be constrained in a principled fashion to comply with the exclusivity principle. The modern trend toward flexibility and freer overlap is contrary to the constitutional text. The author argues that while some deviation from the text is inevitable due to the presumption of constitutionality and stare decisis, the Supreme Court should return to a more exclusivist footing in accordance with the text. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................. 226 II. THE EXCLUSIVITY PRINCIPLE .................................. 227 A. FROM QUEBEC TO THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT ................. 227 B. THE NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE AND THE DEEMING PROVISION ...... 231 C. CONCURRENT POWERS ................................... 234 III. PITH AND SUBSTANCE AND LEGITIMATE OVERLAP ................. 235 A. INTERJURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITY .........................
    [Show full text]
  • No Free Beer – R. V. Comeau and Its Effects on Inter-Provincial Trade
    No Free Beer – R. v. Comeau and its Effects on Inter-Provincial Trade By Paul Chiswell and Robert Martz Today the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released its decision in R. v. Comeau, 2018 SCC 15 (Comeau), the interprovincial free trade beer case.* The Court expanded the interpretation of section 121 of the Constitution Act by finding that s. 121 prohibits laws that in essence and purpose impede the passage of goods across provincial borders. For those who hoped the decision would constitutionally entrench a Canadian economic union or free trade in Canada, the decision is disappointing. For those who were more tempered in their expectations, the decision balances provincial autonomy with tools to strike down, not only interprovincial tariff barriers, but also "tariff- like" laws. Comeau was initially a case about beer. Mr. Comeau was charged and fined $240 for bringing a few cases of beer from Quebec to his home province of New Brunswick. Rather than pay the fine, Mr. Comeau challenged it as being unconstitutional. When his case was heard by the New Brunswick Provincial Court, Judge Leblanc, agreed and not only vacated the fine, but effectively struck down part of New Brunswick's liquor monopoly laws as unconstitutional. The case went straight to the SCC. At the SCC, Mr. Comeau argued that all trade barriers between provinces were unconstitutional. Had the SCC agreed with Mr. Comeau, this would effectively have meant the end of supply management and provincial liquor monopolies. Not surprisingly, the SCC declined to take such radical action, which could have significant effect on federal and provincial legislative schemes dealing with environmental, heath, commercial and social objectives.
    [Show full text]
  • SCC File No. 37398 in the SUPREME COURT of CANADA
    SCC File No. 37398 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (On Appeal from the New Brunswick Court of Appeal) BETWEEN HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN APPLICANT (Appellant) -AND- GERARD COMEAU RESPONDENT (Respondent) RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL (GERARD COMEAU, RESPONDENT) (Pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of The Supreme Court of Canada) GARDINER ROBERTS LLP SUPREME ADVOCACY LLP Bay Adelaide Centre, East Tower 340 Gilmour Street, Suite 100 22 Adelaide St. W., Suite 3600 Ottawa, Ontario K2P 0R3 Toronto, Ontario M5H 4E3 Marie-France Major Ian Blue Tel: (613)695-8855 Arnold Schwisberg Fax: (613)695-8580 Mikael Bernanrd Email: [email protected] Tel: (416) 865-2962 Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Fax: (416) 865-6636 Respondent, Gerard Comeau Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Respondent, Gerard Comeau THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW GOWLING WLG (CANADA) LLP BRUNSWICK Barristers and Solicitors PUBLIC PROSECUTION SERVICES 160 Elgin Street Carleton Place 26th Floor P.O. Box 6000 Ottawa, ON K1P 1C3 Fredericton, NB E3C 5H1 D. Lynne Watt William B. Richards Tel: (613) 786-8695 Kathryn A. Gregory Fax: (613) 788-3509 Tel: (506) 453-2784 Email: [email protected] Fax: (506) 453-5364 Email: [email protected] Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Applicant Counsel for the Applicant TABLE OF CONTENTS TAB PAGE RESPONSE MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENT PART I – OVERVIEWAD STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................1 Scope of the Comeau Interpretation ....................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • Two Options for Pay Equity: Complete Compensation Or No Laws at All
    Legislating Under the Influence: Is the Impaired Driving Act Constitutional? Introduction As the Trudeau government sought to fulfill its campaign promise of legalizing cannabis with Bill C-45 (The Cannabis Act), it also introduced a complementary bill to address impaired driving last May. The Impaired Driving Act, or Bill C-46, was introduced by Justice Minister Wilson-Raybould and passed the same week as C-45. The purpose of C-46 is “to simplify the investigation and prosecution of impaired driving offences.”[1] However, it is also an effort to “strengthen the legislative penalties for impaired driving,” which is one of the most common criminal convictions in the country.[2] C-46 is the criminal or regulatory component of C-45. It criminalizes driving under the influence of drugs, including cannabis. The law replaces the existing framework for impaired driving and stiffens the penalties for driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol. It has two parts: the first part addresses drug-impaired driving offences and proposes a framework for roadside testing of drivers “based on a reasonable suspicion of impairment.” The second part deals with alcohol impaired driving. It makes enforcement more readily available to police officers and penalties for impaired driving are now even steeper[3] Given the heinous nature of drinking and driving, the bill was expected to receive widespread support and pass without any opposition. However, the bill was characterized as being full of legal ‘holes’ and errors, and was a source of contention between the House of Commons and the Senate.[4] Multiple lawmakers and legal organizations have expressed their concerns about the constitutionality of the bill and its implications.
    [Show full text]
  • Debates of the Senate
    CANADA Debates of the Senate 3rd SESSION . 37th PARLIAMENT . VOLUME 141 . NUMBER 20 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Thursday, March 11, 2004 ^ THE HONOURABLE DAN HAYS SPEAKER CONTENTS (Daily index of proceedings appears at back of this issue). Debates and Publications: Chambers Building, Room 943, Tel. 996-0193 Published by the Senate Available from Communication Canada ± Canadian Government Publishing, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0S9. Also available on the Internet: http://www.parl.gc.ca 513 THE SENATE Thursday, March 11, 2004 The Senate met at 1:30 p.m., the Speaker in the Chair. Hon. B. Alasdair Graham: Honourable senators, earlier this week I had the privilege of spending some memorable moments Prayers. with the Sisters of the Congregation of Notre-Dame, in Sydney, Nova Scotia, at the funeral for Sister Mary Alice, best known as [Translation] Peggy Butts, who passed away last Saturday. Honourable senators will recall that Sister Peggy served with distinction in this chamber from 1997 to 1999. ROYAL ASSENT A religious senator? What a wonderful story that will make in a The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that the following hoped for future biography on the life and times of this respected communication had been received: senator, scholar and teacher, as well as fearless advocate of justice for the poor and the disadvantaged. RIDEAU HALL As a member of the Congregation of Notre-Dame, Peggy March 11, 2004 inherited the compassion and social activism of the founder, St. Marguerite Bourgeoys. She was cut from the same kind of Mr. Speaker, cloth as the young, adventuresome and courageous Marguerite of Troyes, France, who set off for the New World in 1653 on a I have the honour to inform you that the Right perilous, two-month ocean voyage to what would become Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, Governor General of Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Desgagnés Transport Inc. V. Wärtsilä Canada Inc., 2019 SCC 58 APPEAL HEARD: January 24, 20
    SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Desgagnés Transport Inc. v. Wärtsilä APPEAL HEARD: January 24, 2019 Canada Inc., 2019 SCC 58 JUDGMENT RENDERED: November 28, 2019 DOCKET: 37873 BETWEEN: Desgagnés Transport Inc., Desgagnés Transarctik Inc., Navigation Desgagnés Inc., Lloyds Underwriters and Institute of Lloyds Underwriters (ILU) Companies Subscribing to Policy Number B0856 09h0016 and Aim Insurance (Barbados) SCC Appellants and Wärtsilä Canada Inc. and Wärtsilä Nederland B.V. Respondents - and - Attorney General of Ontario and Attorney General of Quebec Interveners CORAM: Wagner C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon, Côté, Brown, Rowe and Martin JJ. JOINT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: Gascon, Côté and Rowe JJ. (Moldaver, Karakatsanis and (paras. 1 to 107) Martin JJ. concurring) JOINT CONCURRING REASONS: Wagner C.J. and Brown J. (Abella J. concurring) (paras. 108 to 193) NOTE: This document is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form in the Canada Supreme Court Reports. DESGAGNÉS TRANSPORT INC. v. WÄRTSILÄ CANADA INC. Desgagnés Transport Inc., Desgagnés Transarctik Inc., Navigation Desgagnés Inc., Lloyds Underwriters and Institute of Lloyds Underwriters (ILU) Companies Subscribing to Policy Number B0856 09h0016 and Aim Insurance (Barbados) SCC Appellants v. Wärtsilä Canada Inc. and Wärtsilä Nederland B.V. Respondents and Attorney General of Ontario and Attorney General of Quebec Interveners Indexed as: Desgagnés Transport Inc. v. Wärtsilä Canada Inc. 2019 SCC 58 File No.: 37873. 2019: January 24; 2019: November
    [Show full text]
  • 6-From Suds to Buds- Canadian Premiers Need to Make Internal Trade an Immediate Priority.Pdf
    Randall Bartlett, Chief Economist This report was prepared under the supervision of Kevin Page, President & CEO of the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy (IFSD). IFSD is a Canadian think-tank at the University of Ottawa that sits at the nexus of public finance and state institutions. It is at this dynamic intersection that the IFSD strives to research, advise, engage and teach. IFSD undertakes its work at all levels of government in Canada and abroad, while helping to prepare its student researchers and volunteers to make their mark as practitioners and good citizens. 115 Séraphin-Marion Room 107 Ottawa ON K1N 6N5 613-562-5800 x 5628 Ifsd.ca | [email protected] INTRODUCTION Over the last few decades, Canadian provinces have become increasingly open to trade, both with other countries and with one another. Following a similar trend around the world, this increased openness has supported rising living standards, albeit with fundamental shifts in the employment and economic landscapes. But while openness has increased, its pace has followed two very different tracks. International trade, for instance, has advanced rapidly on the back of trade agreements spearheaded by federal governments of all political stripes. Meanwhile, interprovincial trade has advanced at a much slower pace. And although progress has been made, most recently in the form of the 2017 Canadian Free Trade Agreement (CFTA), the recent judgment handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the right of provinces to enact tariff-like barriers if they deem it beneficial (in this case, regarding the taxation of beer) demonstrates that there remains a lot of work to be done in liberalizing internal trade in Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • The Honourable Justice Malcolm Rowe and Leanna Katz*
    Vol. 41 Windsor Review of Legal and Social Issues 1 A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO STARE DECISIS The Honourable Justice Malcolm Rowe and Leanna Katz* I. STARE DECISIS: AN INTRODUCTION The doctrine of stare decisis asks judges to look back to cases that have been decided as a guide to judging the case before them. The term comes from the Latin phrase stare decisis et non quieta movere, which means “to stand by decisions, and not to disturb settled points.”1 Stare decisis is often described as incorporating a tension between certainty—on the one hand—and achieving a just result on the other. The idea of certainty and the correction of error (to achieve a just result) as competing forces was captured by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2012 in Canada v Craig: “The Court must ask whether it is preferable to adhere to an incorrect precedent to maintain certainty, or to correct * The Honourable Justice Malcolm Rowe graduated with a B.A. and a B.Sc. from Memorial University of Newfoundland in 1975. He received his law degree from Osgoode Hall Law School in 1978. He was called to the bar in Ontario and in Newfoundland. He served as Clerk Assistant of the provincial legislature, before joining the diplomatic service where he served at the United Nations and in Havana, Cuba. He then entered private practice in Ottawa, becoming a partner at Gowlings. His work there included advising the Canadian government on international and public law. Justice Rowe was also a lecturer on constitutional and public law at the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law.
    [Show full text]