Constitutional Forum (Journal)
Not a member yet
551 research outputs found
Sort by
Intergovernmental Relations, Legitimacy, and the Atlantic Accords
No full textAre the Atlantic Accords regarded as legiti- mate agreements in Canada? If not, why not? And does it matter? The purpose of this article is to answer these questions. Legitimacy resides in the eyes of the be- holder. Who is the beholder? Initially, one thinks mainly of citizens in this respect. How- ever, another beholder is government — other governments. In federations, governments of- ten deal directly with one another, a sphere of activity called executive federalism. When the central government negotiates agreements with one or more (but not all) regional governments, the rest are relegated to the status of observ- ers. As observers, they might well have ideas on the legitimacy of the activity, including the process used and the resulting agreement that is reached
Constitutional Change to Address Climate Change and Nonrenewable Energy Use
No full textClimate change, or climate breakdown, is arguably the greatest challenge we now face. The need to address it seriously has been widely accepted by all national political parties in Can- ada, if only lately and grudgingly. Yet Canada is far behind European countries in turning to low-carbon energy sources — we remain the world’s highest per capita energy user and car- bon emitter. We signed the Kyoto Protocol,1 but far from meeting our obligations under it, we have increased our greenhouse gas emissions. Our record is worse than even the Americans, who did not sign Kyoto
RELIGIOUS DISCOURSE IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE
No full textFull, open, and civilized discourse among citizens is fundamental to the life of a liberal democracy. It seems trite to assert that no discourse should be prohibited or excluded simply because it is grounded in religious faith or employs religious beliefs to justify a particular position.1 Yet there are those who contend that it is improper for citizens to use religious arguments when debating or deciding issues in the public square,2 that metaphorical arena where issues of public policy are discussed and contested. In this article we challenge this position, examining the various arguments that are put forward for keeping public discourse secular, arguments that when citizens explicitly ground their social and political views in their religious beliefs, this is divisive, exclusionary, and ultimately antithetical to the liberal democratic state. We maintain that none of these arguments are persuasive
WALDMAN V. CANADA: RELIGOUS DISCRIMINATION IN THE CONSTITITUON
No full textWALDMAN V. CANADA: RELIGOUS DISCRIMINATION IN THE CONSTITITUO
THE NAFTA DURUM DISPUTE AND THE CANADA GRAIN ACT: A CASE STUDY IN INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
No full textTHE NAFTA DURUM DISPUTE AND THE CANADA GRAIN ACT: A CASE STUDY IN INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMEN
THE STATUS AND RIGHTS OF THE JAMES BAY CREES IN THE CONTEXT OF QUÉBEC SECESSION FROM CANADA
No full textTHE STATUS AND RIGHTS OF THE JAMES BAY CREES IN THE CONTEXT OF QUÉBEC SECESSION FROM CANAD
TURP AMENDING THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION: A MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS
No full textTURP AMENDING THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION: A MATHEMATICAL ANALYSI
NELLES V. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO ET AL.
No full textNelles v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario Et Al
Sometimes Constitutions are Made in the Streets: the Future of the Charter’s Notwithstanding Clause
No full textThis article examines the future of section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the notwithstanding clause)1 — specifically, its po- litical future. It explores whether it is a consti- tutional instrument which is likely to be used in the future by legislatures or by Parliament.2 The article is premised on the idea that popular po- litical notions about political and constitutional legitimacy, while often formed by the constitu- tional text, sometimes evolve independently of the text. When this happens, these new concep- tions of legitimacy will constrain the exercise of constitutional powers no matter how clearly the powers are conferred by the text. From this per- spective, this article argues that in an apparent regime of entrenched rights, such as Canada’s, the legislative suspension of rights will be re- garded as less reflective of the constituted order — and, hence, less legitimate — than will hav- ing legislatures insist that their choices should prevail over constitutional rights in some cir- cumstances