One of the most important changes brought about by the Constitution Act, 1982, was the introduction of the procedure for amending the Constitution in future without making an appeal to the British Parliament. Part V of the 1982 Constitution Act, covering Sec 38 to 49 contains a procedure for amending the Constitution of Canada. The amending procedure provides how the Canadians through their National and Provincial Governments can make changes in their Constitution.
Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982, which is headed "Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada," provides the following five different amending procedures:
A general amending procedure in Sec. 38 for categories of amendments not otherwise expressly provided for and for specific
…show more content…
44 has power to amend provisions relating to the federal executive and Houses of Parliament.
(5) Each provincial Legislature alone in Sec. 45 has power to amend "the constitution of the province.
An amendment of the Constitution may be made by a resolution of the House of Commons and the Senate and by resolutions of the Provincial Legislative Assemblies of at least two-thirds of the Provinces that have in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty percent of the population of all the provinces. An amendment may be initiated either by House of Commons or the Senate or by the Legislative Assembly of a province.
This general amending formula has two important aspects; the amending procedure provides, firstly, a role for the provinces in making constitutional changes, and, secondly, no single province, big or small, can veto a constitutional amendment. That requires the consent of both the Houses of Parliament and seven Provincial Legislatures representing at least 50 percent of the population of all the
…show more content…
After the expiry of one year the proclamation Assemblies had not signified their assent or dissent, provided Assemblies of seven Provinces representing 50 percent of the population of the Provinces had assented to the amendment as passed by Parliament. But, no proclamation shall be issued after the expiration of three years from the date the adoption of the resolution initiating the amendment. It lapses.
Where an amendment is made transferring provincial legislative powers relating to education or other cultural matters from the jurisdiction of all the provincial legislatures to
Parliament, the Federal Government shall provide reasonable compensation to a province which had “opted out” of that change. There is a limit of three provinces that can choose
... effect changes in the senate, to alter the representation within the House of Commons, influence immigration, control the Supreme Court and to be accorded a distinct society status, were excessive. Despite these demands being too much, they did not lead to the failure of the agreement, which was mainly influenced by the weaknesses in the constitution.
The municipal restructuring in Ontario from 1996 to 1999, whether voluntary or involuntary, was the most comprehensive process of municipal reforms since the Baldwin Act of 1849 (Frisken 30). After the election of Harris’ Conservative government in 1995, municipal reform took on a life of its own as it was followed with substantial activity between 1996 and 1999 (Sancton 135-56). This research paper looks to categorize, describe and evaluate the substantial activity that took place between the province and its municipal subordinates. While other papers have argued whether the change of the fiscal relationship was to benefit the province or if the structure of local government had simply become outdated, the issues of why the reforms occurred is not the focus of this research. However, what this paper will evaluate is whether the substantial activity made any long-term changes in the system by outlining the numerous reforms and examining their impact. This paper will begin by assessing the financial reform, which was the starting point for more extensive changes, followed by functional, structural and legislative reforms during 1996 to 1999.
The inclusion of the Notwithstanding Clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was an invaluable contribution in the evolution of the liberal democratic state. Not an endpoint, to be sure, but a significant progression in the rights protection dynamic. Subsequent to its passage in 1982 it became the primary rights protecting mechanism, however, its raison d`etre was as a neccessary concession, the pivotal factor allowing the patriation of the constitution. Many legislators present at the constitutional conference in 1981 opposed in varying degrees the entrenchment of a "bill of rights" in the constitution. The premier of Saskatchewan, Allan Blakeney, A preeminent liberal legislator at the time, recognized this potential document as an invitation to judicial review. He feared a conservative judiciary might hinder enlightened policies and sought authority beyond the ambit of an entrenched rights protection act. At the other end of the political spectrum opposition was in the form of an allegiance to parliamentary supremacy as expressed most notably by Sterling Lyon, the conservative premier of Manitoba. Imbedding section 33, commonly referred to as the Notwithstanding Clause, into the constitutional document alleviated these concerns to a degree that permitted their compliance. It is well established that the impetus for the Notwithstanding Clause was of a political nature. To insert this so inspired clause into an intended sanctuary from capricious legislative acts appears tantamount to allowing the fox to guard the chicken coop. Conceivably the same legislative majority that would create the laws abridging rights could exem...
The Fourteenth Amendment ultimately became the heart and soul of the modern American Constitution. Most of the legal battle’s surrounding the United States Bill of Rights have been to make it a truly national document – such that states may not violate its provisions. The Fourteenth Amendment finally made this possible. A more sudden, but perhaps equally profound event is the adoption in 1982 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Whereas before the adoption of the Charter Canadian legislatures were supreme, having power without limit within their jurisdictions, they now have debatable supremacy within altered jurisdictions.
... of their prospect. Until 1982, the power to amend the Canadian constitution thus would remain that of the parliament of Britain.
This great country known as Canada, is governed smoothly because of the agreements and rules that have been in place since the beginning of confederation. The Canadian Constitution is one example of these rules. The Canadian Constitution is not just one single documentation, it is a collaboration of documents that make up one enormous document (Dyck 261). The six basic principles of the constitution are: responsible government, federalism, judicial review, the rule of law, constitutional monarchy and democracy; which all helped to shape the Constitution and therefore Canada (Dyck 266).
Section 2. “This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several St...
Senate reform in Canada has been a popular topic for decades but has yet to be accomplished. Since the Senates formation in 1867 there has been numerous people who call for its reform or abolishment due to the fact it has not changed since its implementation and does not appear to be fulfilling its original role. An impediment to this request is that a constitutional amendment is needed to change the structure of the Senate, which is not an easy feat. Senate reform ideas have developed from other upper houses in counties such as the United States of America and the Federal Republic of Germany. From those two different successful governments emerges examples of different electoral systems, state representation, and methods of passing legislations.
... A successful strategy in the accommodation of national minorities within a liberal democracy could be founded upon mutual trust, recognition and sound financial arrangements. However, a certain degree of tension between central and regional institutions may remain as a constant threat in this complex relationship since they entertain opposing aims. The federal governments determination to protect its territorial integrity, and its will to foster a single national identity among its citizens clashes with Quebec’s wish to be recognized as a separate nation and decide upon its political destiny and to foster its distinct identity (Guibernau pg.72). Moreover, if the ROC and the federal government can come to an agreement on terms that satisfy the majority and an identity that encompasses the heart of a country; Canada will continue to exist with or without Quebec.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 2, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11.
First, some background on the subject. Canada is divided into 308 ridings, and each riding elects one person to represent all the citizens in that riding. The party that wins the most ridings forms the government, and if that party has gained more than half the seats, as is usually the case, they form a majority and have the ability to pass any bill in the House of Commons that they wish, regardless of the opinions that other representatives have. This SMP system has remained unchanged in Canada since Confederation in 1867. On the other hand there is proportional representation, which is broken down into two main forms: Mixed Member Proportionality (MMP) and Single Transferable Vote (STV). MMP was first put into use ...
Trying to apply new reforms in the Canadian constitution has been no easy task. The mixture of the parliamentary/monarchy powers denies the citizens’ direct participation in the government’s decision-making process and does not allow the existence of a complete free democratic system. A true democracy simply cannot fully exist with a restricted monarch selecting type of government and any reforms must be applied to make Canadian constitutions’ laws be based on democratic principles.
The Prime Minister of Canada is given much power and much responsibility. This could potentially create a dangerous situation if the government held a majority and was able to pass any legislation, luckily this is not the case. This paper will argue that there are many limitations, which the power of the prime minister is subject too. Three of the main limitations, which the Prime Minister is affected by, are; first, federalism, second the governor general and third, the charter of rights and freedoms. I will support this argument by analyzing two different types of federalism and how they impact the power of the Prime Minister. Next I will look at three of the Governor Generals Powers and further analyze one of them. Last I will look at the impact of the charter from the larger participation the public can have in government, and how it increased the power of the courts.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted under the Pierre Trudeau government on April 17, 1982. According to Phillip Bryden, “With the entrenchment of the Charter into the Canadian Constitution, Canadians were not only given an explicit definition of their rights, but the courts were empowered to rule on the constitutionality of government legislation” (101). Prior to 1982, Canada’s central constitutional document was the British North America Act of 1867. According to Kallen, “The BNA Act (the Constitution Act, 1867) makes no explicit reference to human rights” (240). The adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms significantly transformed the operation of Canada’s political system. Presently, Canadians define their needs and complaints in human rights terms. Bryden states, “More and more, interest groups and minorities are turning to the courts, rather than the usual political processes, to make their grievances heard” (101). Since it’s inception in 1982 the Charter has become a very debatable issue. A strong support for the Charter remains, but there also has been much criticism toward the Charter. Academic critics of the Charter such as Robert Martin believe that the Charter is doing more harm than good, and is essentially antidemocratic and UN-Canadian. I believe that Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic, although, the Charter itself represents a democratic document. Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic because the power of the executive is enhanced at the expense of Parliament, and the power of the judiciary is enhanced at the expense of elected officials, although, the notwithstanding clause continues to provide Parliament with a check on...
It was noon when the peak of Vesuvius erupted, the eruption propelled a 20 mile high Colum into the stratosphere at twice the speed of sound. For the next 12 hours heavy showers of ash fell out of the cloud and onto Pompeii and eventually buried the streets under six feet of rouble. However this did not kill the people.