Legitimate Constitutional Change and the Debate on Quebec Secession

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Legitimate Constitutional Change and the Debate on Quebec Secession INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy subrnitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of cornputer pnnter. The quality of this reproduction is dapendant upon the qwlity of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, coiored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bieedthrough, substandarà margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noteâ. Also, if unauthotized copyright matenal had to be removed, a note wÏll indicate the deletion. Ovenize materials (e.g.. maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by secüoning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in eqwl sections with small overlaps. Photographs included in the original manuscript have ben reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographie prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. Bell 8 Howell Information and Leaming 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 USA Legitimate Constitutional Change and The Debate on Quebec Secession Alissa Malkin A thesis subrnitted in confomity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Laws Graduate Department of Law University of Toronto (6 Copyright by Alissa Malkin 1998 National Library Bibliothèque nationale (91 of Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON KIA ON4 Ottawa ON KIA ON4 Canada Canada The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence aliowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sel1 reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of ths thesis in rnicroform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownersbip of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thése. thesis nor substantial extracts f?om it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or ohenvise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. Abstract Legitimate Cwtitutional Change and the Debate on Qwbec Secession Alissa Malkin Master of Laws 1998, Graduate Department of Law University of Toronto I propose a theory of what constitutes legitimate constitutional amendment in Canada. I argue that the Constitution of Canada is in essence a tradition, the continuity of which is provided by a particular set of values embodied in principles, institutions and remedies. These are informed by a certain conception of the individual; and developed wer the centuries in order to further a certain understanding of human dignity. Canadians have been shaped as a people within this tradition; and political and legal legitimacy therefore depend upon continued conformity to its underlying values. Legitimate constitutional change must be in accordance with these values. Secession of a province, like any other cmstitutional change occuring within this tradition, must respect the relation between individual liberty and democratic governance within which our tradition's understanding of individual dignity is best realized. I suggest that the debate over Quebec secession should be framed in these tenns. Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction.................................................................................. 5 Chapter 2: The Constitution of Canada .......................................................... 16 1. The Compact Theory of Confe&ration .......................................... 18 Rovincial Compact ............................................................. 19 Two Nations........................................................................... 21 2. The Constitution and The People of Canada ................................... 35 Tradition............................................................................... 35 Constitutional Legitimacy..................................................... 38 The People of Canada .............................................................43 Sovereignty........................................................................... 47 3 . Conclusions............................................................................. 52 Chapter 3: Constitutional Values.................................................................. 54 1. Our Constitutional Inheritance.................................................... 55 Autonomy. Equality. Dignity ............................................. 64 2 . Our Confederation Arrangements................................................. 68 3 . The Canadian Continuation of This Tradition................................ 73 Legislative Supremacy ......................................................... 74 Evolving Political Consciousness......................................... 77 Liberty and Dernocracy.................................................... 84 4 . Conclusions................................................................................... 86 Chapter 4: Consitutional Change .................................................................. 89 1. Continuity and Legitimate Constitutional Change......................... 90 2 . Legal Limitations on Constitutional Change................................. 95 3 . Conclusions.................................................................................. 1 10 Chapter 5: Secession................................................................................... 1 12 1. Secession Within The Constitution.............................................. 1 14 2 . Justibing Secession.................................................................... 1 21 3 . Conclusions.................................................................................. 1 29 Chapter 6: Conclusion................................................................................. 131 How far does a constitution affect the character of a people? I have no doubt that the effect of constitutions was much exaggerated one hundred years ago and later on no one I suppose now questions that, in general, a constitution is, in the main, the outcome of the character and history of the people on whom it exists. But then do people not too readily assume, when al1 this is granted, that a constitution does not in tum affect the character of a people and the history of a country?l A.V. Dicey Letter to James Bryce. Ms. Bryce Papers 3, December 15, 1 901 (Fol. 6) quoted in "Dicey in Historical Perspective: A Review Essay", John F. McEldowney, in Law, Legitimacy, and the Cmstitution Patrick McAuslan and John F. McEldowney eds. (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1985) p.39 at p.61. Chapter 1: Introduction The aim of this thesis is to suggest a frarnework for debating the legitimacy of any proposed change to the Constitution of Canada. I offer a theory of what constitutes legitimate amendment and propose a standard agaimt which any particular constitutional change may be measured. My interest in undertaking this project developed while listening to the puMic debate surrounding the recent Quebec referendum.2 Staternents made by representatives of the two official 'sidest in the debate consisted, for the most part, in appeals to principle rather than assertions of force. Each side seemed intent on persuading the Canadian public that their position was the legitimate one. But according to what standard was legitimacy to be judged? Very different ideas about comtitutional legitimacy seemed to underlie the opposing positions. Thus the secession debate seerned characterized by a strange confusion: while the very exercise was premised on the assumption that there is a common set of values to which al1 participants can appeaf, the notions of legitimacy underlying the positions taken seemed very much at odds. 20n October 30, 1995 Quebeckers voted in a referendum on Quebec secession. Electors were asked: "Do yw agree that Quebec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new Econornic and Political Partnership, within the scope of the Bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1 99 5?" The latter referred to an agreement signed by the leaders of the Parti-Québécois, the Bloc Québécois and the Action Démocratique, outlining their common project for the sovereignty of Quebec. According to this agreement, following a Yes vote in a referendurn the National Assembiy would be empawered to proclaim the sovereignty of Quebec; and the guvemmnt obligated to prapose to Canada an agreement cm a new economic and political partnership. Bill 1, "An Act respecting the future of Québec" (1st Sess., 35th Leg., Quebec, 1995) authorized the National Assernbly to proclaim the sovereignty of Quebec, following a fonnal offer of economic and political partnership with Canada. (s.1). The result of the referendum was 50.58% for "No" and 49.42% for "Yes". Québec, Rappot des résultats officiels du scrutin: réf&endum du 30 octobre 1995 (Québec:
Recommended publications
  • The Honorable L. Yves Fortier PC, CC, OQ, QC, Ad. E., LLD
    The Honorable L. Yves Fortier PC, CC, OQ, QC, Ad. E., LLD Quebec Bar 1960 On December 31st, 2011, Mr. Fortier severed his long-time relationship with Norton Rose OR, (formerly Ogilvy Renault) “the Firm”. He was then Chairman Emeritus of the Firm. From 1992 until 2008, he was Chairman of the Firm. Since January 1st, 2012, Mr. Fortier practices law in Montréal as an independent The Honorable mediator/arbitrator. He also has offices in Toronto and London. He is recognized as one of L. Yves Fortier the top arbitrators in the world. PC, CC, OQ, QC, Ad. E., LLD Mr. Fortier has served as Chairman or party-appointed arbitrator on more than 300 arbitral Cabinet Yves Fortier tribunals, either ad hoc or constituted by different arbitral institutions, including the Place Alexis Nihon / Tour 2 International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (Paris), the 3500, Boul De Maisonneuve O, London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), the Hong Kong International Arbitration Bureau 1400 Court (HKIAC), the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), the China International Montréal, (Québec) H3Z 3C1 Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), the American Arbitration T : (514) 286-2011 Association, the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the Zurich Chamber of Commerce, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), the Canadian Commercial F : (514) 286-2019 Arbitration Centre, the British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre and the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. He has served as Chairman or party- appointed arbitrator on more than 50 Investor-State International Tribunals. Mr. Fortier has also served on more than 50 panels of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne and the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC).
    [Show full text]
  • Supremacy of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
    Osgoode Hall Law School of York University Osgoode Digital Commons Articles & Book Chapters Faculty Scholarship 1983 Supremacy of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Peter W. Hogg Osgoode Hall Law School of York University Source Publication: Canadian Bar Review. Volume 61, Number 1 (1983), p. 69-80. 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. "Supremacy of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms." Canadian Bar Review 61.1 (1983): 69-80. 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. SUPREMACY ®F THE CANADIAN CHARTER ®F RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS PETER W. HOGG* Toronto The Canadian Charter ofRights and Freedoms is Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which is part ofthe "Constitution ofCanada" . By virtue ofsection 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, the Constitution of Canada is "the supreme law of Canada", and inconsistent laws enacted by the Parliament or a Legislature are of noforce or effect. In this article the writer concludes that the Constitution Act, 1982, includingPartI (the Charter) andsection52(1) (the supremacy clause), has been validly enacted by the UnitedKingdom Parliament, and has been effectively entrenched so that its provisions can only .be amended by the new amending procedures laid down by Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982 . La Charte canadienne des droits et libertés constitue la Partie I de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982, elle-même incorporée à la "Constitution du Canada" .
    [Show full text]
  • Mcgill's FACULTY of LAW: MAKING HISTORY
    McGILL’S FACULTY OF LAW: MAKING HISTORY FACULTÉ DE DROIT FACULTY OF LAW Stephen Smith Wins Law’s Fourth Killam Comité des jeunes diplômés : dix ans déjà! Breaking the Language Barrier: la Facultad habla español Boeing Graduate Fellowships Take Flight Une année dynamique pour les droits de la personne CREDITS COVER (clockwise from top): the 2007-2008 Legal Methodology teaching assistants; three participants at the International Young Leaders Forum (p. 27); James Robb with friends and members of the Faculty Advisory EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Board (p. 10); Killam winners Stephen Scott, H. Patrick Glenn and Roderick Macdonald (p. 22); announcement of the Boeing Fellowships (p. 13); Human Rights Working Group letter-writing campaign (p. 6). Derek Cassoff Jane Glenn Diana Grier Ayton Toby Moneit-Hockenstein RÉDACTRICE EN CHEF Lysanne Larose EDITOR Mark Ordonselli 01 Mot du doyen CONTRIBUTORS 03 Student News and Awards Andrés J. Drew Nicholas Kasirer 06 A Lively Year for the Human Lysanne Larose Rights Working Group Maria Marcheschi 06 Seven Years of Human Rights Neale McDevitt Internships Toby Moneit-Hockenstein Mark Ordonselli 08 The Career Development Jennifer Smolak Office and You WHERE ARE OUR Pascal Zamprelli 09 Dix ans déjà! ALUMNI-IN-LAW? CORRECTEUR D’ÉPREUVE 10 The James Robb Award Peter Pawelek 11 Les Prix F.R. Scott de service PHOTOGRAPHERS exemplaire Claudio Calligaris Owen Egan 12 New Hydro-Québec Scholars Paul Fournier in Sustainable Development Kyle Gervais 13 Boeing Gives Legal Lysanne Larose Maria Marcheschi Scholarship Wings
    [Show full text]
  • Panel Discussion on Canada's Campaign for a UN Security Council Seat
    Panel Discussion on Canada’s Campaign for a UN Security Council Seat DATE/DATE: June 19, 2009 3:00 p.m. LOCATION/ENDROIT: Westin Hotel, Governor-General Ballroom III, Ottawa, Ontario PRINCIPALS/PRINCIPAUX: Former Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Yves Fortier Former Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Paul Heinbecker Nancy White, Executive Director, United Nations Association of Canada Nancy Wildgoose, President, United Nations Association of Canada Allan Gotlieb, Senior Advisor, Bennett Jones Steven Edwards, Correspondent, CanWest SUBJECT/SUJET: Allan Gotlieb chairs a panel discussion on Canada's Campaign for a UN Security Council Seat. Nancy Wildgoose: Good afternoon et bienvenue à tous et toutes. This is an important event for us, the first event in our 64th annual general meeting. The United Nations Association in Canada is just one year younger than the UN itself and we’re part of a family of organization sin other UN countries that sometimes called the people’s UN. So we’re glad to see people here to engage in this debate. We’re going to have speakers, panelists present their views and engage but there’s going to be ample opportunity and I invite all of you to participate this afternoon. Je continuerais en anglais mais je vous invite de poser vos questions, de faire vos remarques soit en anglais soit en français. Welcome to everyone. One of the ways we set about fulfilling our mandate which is to engage and inform Canadians about the UN itself and about international issues particularly as they touch upon the interests of Canada. We do it about by fomenting debate.
    [Show full text]
  • The Honorable L. Yves Fortier, PC, CC, OQ, QC, Ad. E., LLD
    The Honorable L. Yves Fortier, PC, CC, OQ, QC, Ad. E., LLD Cabinet Yves Fortier 1 Place Ville Marie Suite 2822 Montréal (Québec) H3B 4R4 T: (514) 286-2013 F: (514) 286-2019 [email protected] Quebec Bar 1960 On December 31st, 2011, Mr. Fortier severed his long-time relationship with Norton Rose OR, (formerly Ogilvy Renault) “the Firm”. He was then Chairman Emeritus of the Firm. From 1992 until 2008, he was Chairman of the Firm. Since January 1st, 2012, Mr. Fortier is now a sole practitioner. He practices law in Montréal as an independent mediator/arbitrator. He also has offices in Toronto and London. He is recognized as one of the top arbitrators in the world. Mr. Fortier has served as Chairman or party-appointed arbitrator on more than 250 arbitral tribunals, either ad hoc or constituted by different arbitral institutions, including the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (Paris), the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), the Hong Kong International Arbitration Court (HKIAC), the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), the American Arbitration Association, the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the Zurich Chamber of Commerce, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), the Canadian Commercial Arbitration Centre, the British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre and the ADR Chambers International Panel. He has also served as Chairman or party-appointed arbitrator on more than 40 Investor-State International Tribunals. From 1984 to 1989 he was a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague.
    [Show full text]
  • Reconciling Parliamentary Sovereignty and Judicial Review: on the Theoretical and Historical Origins of the Israeli Legislative Override Power Rivka Weill
    Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly Volume 39 Article 4 Number 2 Winter 2011 1-1-2011 Reconciling Parliamentary Sovereignty and Judicial Review: On the Theoretical and Historical Origins of the Israeli Legislative Override Power Rivka Weill Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Rivka Weill, Reconciling Parliamentary Sovereignty and Judicial Review: On the Theoretical and Historical Origins of the Israeli Legislative Override Power, 39 Hastings Const. L.Q. 457 (2011). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly/vol39/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Reconciling Parliamentary Sovereignty and Judicial Review: On The Theoretical and Historical Origins of the Israeli Legislative Override Power by RIVKA WEILL* Introduction It is often asserted that a formal constitution does not demand judicial review over primary legislation.' Rather, a country may conceive other mechanisms to protect the constitution from intrusion by the regular political bodies.2 The question arises whether the * Assistant Professor, Radzyner School of Law, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC). I thank Bruce Ackerman, Aharon Barak, Avihay Dorfman, David Enoch, Alon Harel, Assaf Jacob, Arthur Jacobson, Roz Myers, Amnon Reichman, Mike Siedman, Yoram Shachar and Mark Tushnet for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of the article. This article is part of a larger project titled "Sui Generis? The Hybrid Israeli Constitutional Experience" available on the Social Science Research Network since May 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • Canadianism, Anglo-Canadian Identities and the Crisis of Britishness, 1964-1968
    Nova Britannia Revisited: Canadianism, Anglo-Canadian Identities and the Crisis of Britishness, 1964-1968 C. P. Champion Department of History McGill University, Montreal A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History February 2007 © Christian Paul Champion, 2007 Table of Contents Dedication ……………………………….……….………………..………….…..2 Abstract / Résumé ………….……..……….……….…….…...……..………..….3 Acknowledgements……………………….….……………...………..….…..……5 Obiter Dicta….……………………………………….………..…..…..….……….6 Introduction …………………………………………….………..…...…..….….. 7 Chapter 1 Canadianism and Britishness in the Historiography..….…..………….33 Chapter 2 The Challenge of Anglo-Canadian ethnicity …..……..…….……….. 62 Chapter 3 Multiple Identities, Britishness, and Anglo-Canadianism ……….… 109 Chapter 4 Religion and War in Anglo-Canadian Identity Formation..…..……. 139 Chapter 5 The celebrated rite-de-passage at Oxford University …….…...…… 171 Chapter 6 The courtship and apprenticeship of non-Wasp ethnic groups….….. 202 Chapter 7 The “Canadian flag” debate of 1964-65………………………..…… 243 Chapter 8 Unification of the Canadian armed forces in 1966-68……..….……. 291 Conclusions: Diversity and continuity……..…………………………….…….. 335 Bibliography …………………………………………………………….………347 Index……………………………………………………………………………...384 1 For Helena-Maria, Crispin, and Philippa 2 Abstract The confrontation with Britishness in Canada in the mid-1960s is being revisited by scholars as a turning point in how the Canadian state was imagined and constructed. During what the present thesis calls the “crisis of Britishness” from 1964 to 1968, the British character of Canada was redefined and Britishness portrayed as something foreign or “other.” This post-British conception of Canada has been buttressed by historians depicting the British connection as a colonial hangover, an externally-derived, narrowly ethnic, nostalgic, or retardant force. However, Britishness, as a unique amalgam of hybrid identities in the Canadian context, in fact took on new and multiple meanings.
    [Show full text]
  • 755 the Unbroken Supremacy of the Canadian Constitution I. Introduction
    THE UNBROKEN SUPREMACY OF THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION 755 THE UNBROKEN SUPREMACY OF THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION BRIAN BIRD* This article revives the awareness of the heritage and inheritance of section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. It exposes the pre-1982 legal basis for constitutional judicial review in Canada and the mechanics of the transition in 1982 to an express supremacy clause. This article also challenges two popular notions in Canadian constitutional law today. The first is that the addition of section 52(1) in 1982 transformed Canada from a state governed by parliamentary supremacy into a state governed by constitutional supremacy. The second is that the Canadian judiciary became the guardian of the Canadian Constitution in 1982. Contrary to conventional wisdom, 1982 was, with respect to the supremacy of the Canadian Constitution, a moment of continuity rather than a break with the past. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................. 755 II. CANADA AND THE COLONIAL LAWS VALIDITY ACT, 1865 .............. 757 III. CANADA AND THE STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER, 1931 ................. 761 IV. A LAPSE IN SUPREMACY?..................................... 763 V. CANADA AND THE 1982 MOMENT .............................. 768 VI. DEMYSTIFYING 1982 ........................................ 770 VII. CONCLUSION .............................................. 774 I. INTRODUCTION Since 1982, the Canadian Constitution has featured an express supremacy clause. Section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 declares that the Canadian Constitution is “the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.”1 Canadian courts have invoked section 52(1) since 1982 as the legal basis for invalidating unconstitutional laws enacted by legislatures in Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Open PDF 111KB
    Unionist Voice Policy Studies Northern Ireland – Written evidence (IIO0016) Summary [1] Unionist Voice Policy Studies is a grassroots think-tank developing policy reports on key issues pertinent to the Unionist and Loyalist community. The policy studies group has a series of sub committees including Education; Law and Human Rights; and Culture and Identity. All of the sub committees feed into the central think- tank which is responsible for the preparation of reports and submissions. This report by Unionist Voice Policy Studies explores the legal and constitutional issues arising from the imposition of the Northern Ireland Protocol. It finds that the imposition of the Protocol is unlawful on a range of grounds. The Act of Union [2] The foundational stone of the Union in constitutional law is the Act of Union 1800. In the High Court Judicial Review challenge (which at the time of writing is awaiting judgment), Colton J quite correctly expressed in clear terms that “the Act of Union remains law”. This is an elementary proposition when viewed in the context of the Government arguing that parts of Article VI of the Act of Union had been impliedly repealed by the general provisions within section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2018. It is trite to point out therefore that even by the Government’s own argument, the Act of Union remained law, otherwise why would they advance the proposition it has been subjected to implied repeal via the 2018 Act? [3] Article VI of the Act of Union provides as follows: “That it be the sixth
    [Show full text]
  • The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Edited by Walter S
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Constitutional Commentary 1985 Book Review: The aC nadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Edited by Walter S. Tamopolsky and Gerald-A. Beaudoin. Stephen Allan Scott Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Scott, Stephen Allan, "Book Review: The aC nadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Edited by Walter S. Tamopolsky and Gerald-A. Beaudoin." (1985). Constitutional Commentary. 1014. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/1014 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Constitutional Commentary collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREE­ DOMS. Edited by WalterS. Tamopolsky1 and Gerald-A. Beaudoin.2 Toronto: Carswell Co. Ltd. 1982. Pp. liii, 590. $57.50. Stephen Allan Scott3 This symposium has as its purpose the exposition of what, at the time of its appearance, was a freshly enacted series of Cana­ dian constitutional guarantees of fundamental freedoms. On April 17, 1982, Canada became under its own internal law a sov­ ereign state independent of the United Kingdom. Through the Canada Act 1982,4 the United Kingdom Parliament (acting on a request made by both Houses of the Canadian Parliament, with the concurrence of the executive governments of nine of the ten provinces) brought the law into accord with the long-standing political reality. This final Imperial constituent act, with its asso­ ciated Constitution Act, 1982,s transfers constitution-making power from the United Kingdom Parliament to Canadian institu­ tions acting through a series of intricate constitutional-amend­ ment formulae.
    [Show full text]
  • The Status of "Retained EU Law"
    BRIEFING PAPER Number 08375, 30 July 2019 The status of "retained By Graeme Cowie EU law" Contents: 1. Current status of EU law 2. Effect of repealing the European Communities Act 1972 3. What is retained EU law? 4. EU-derived domestic legislation (section 2 EUWA) 5. Direct EU legislation (section 3 EUWA) 6. Otherwise retained EU law (section 4 EUWA) 7. Limits on retention of EU law (section 5 and Schedule 1) 8. Interpretation of retained EU law (section 6) 9. Transition www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary 2 The status of "retained EU law" Contents Summary 3 1. Current status of EU law 6 1.1 Implementation of EU treaties in the UK 6 1.2 Supremacy of EU law generally 7 1.3 Current relationship between EU law and the UK constitution 8 Parliamentary sovereignty 8 European Communities Act 1972 9 Factortame and disapplication of incompatible domestic law 10 Constitutional statutes and implied repeal 11 European Union Act 2011 12 2. Effect of repealing the European Communities Act 1972 15 2.1 Repealing the 1972 Act 15 2.2 Retaining law arising from the 1972 Act 16 2.3 When is exit day? 16 3. What is retained EU law? 17 3.1 Definition 17 3.2 Exceptions 17 3.3 Omissions 18 3.4 How retained EU law might change 18 4. EU-derived domestic legislation (section 2 EUWA) 19 4.1 What is it? 19 4.2 Examples of what it will include 20 4.3 How can EU-derived domestic legislation be changed? 20 5.
    [Show full text]
  • The Courts, Devolution, and Constitutional Review
    THE COURTS, DEVOLUTION, AND CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW CHRISTOPHER MCCORKINDALE,* AILEEN MCHARG** AND PAUL F SCOTT*** I INTRODUCTION The defining feature of the United Kingdom’s (UK) traditional constitution is the absence of constitutional review. The UK Parliament, since it enjoys unlimited sovereignty, cannot be said to have acted unlawfully, and therefore its acts cannot be struck down by the courts. In recent years, however, this feature of the constitution has come under pressure from a number of different directions,1 including the establishment of devolved legislatures for Scotland and Northern Ireland in 1999,2 and for Wales in 2011.3 Since these bodies do not share Westminster’s sovereignty, they are susceptible to judicial review on the ground that they have strayed beyond their legislative competence as defined in their parent statutes, and potentially – in extreme circumstances – also at common law.4 Judicial review of a subordinate legislature is not unprecedented in the UK context. Review had been possible of legislation enacted by the former Parliament of Northern Ireland, established under the Government of Ireland Act 1920, which existed from 1922 until 1972. However, resort to the courts was relatively uncommon – a fact attributed inter alia to the absence of a constitutional tradition of legislative review5 – and there was only one successful challenge in the Parliament’s 50-year history.6 By contrast, judicial control has proved to be a far more important feature of the contemporary devolution settlements, both in terms of their institutional design and their practical operation. For instance, provisions in Acts of the Scottish Parliament (ASPs) have been declared ultra vires on five * Lecturer in Law, University of Strathclyde.
    [Show full text]