Canadian federalism is a political system in which the powers of the country are divided between the federal government and the provincial government. This was mainly to diffuse historical tensions between the French and English citizens and to create a system that limits the misuse of authority within government. The Canadian Parliament was originally designed identically like that of the British Westminster. However, due to unique circumstances in which Canada experienced prior to confederation, the Canadian political system has evolved to fit Canada's unique
The Canadian Bill of Rights was enacted by Parliament in 1960. It applies to legislation and policies of the federal government and guarantees rights and freedoms similar to those found in the Charter (e.g. equality rights, legal rights, and freedom of religion, of speech and of association). The Bill is not, however, part of the Constitution of Canada. The federal and provincial and territorial governments have adopted legislation (human rights acts or codes) prohibiting discrimination on various grounds in relation to employment, the provision of goods, services and facilities customarily available to the public, and accommodation.
The Compact Theory of Confederation The provincial rights movement led to the “compact theory of Confederation.” Promoted by many provincial premiers, it contended that Confederation was a contract or a compact or a treaty among the original signatory provinces, and could not be revised without their consent. Although not historically or legally correct, this theory had much support in provincial governments and Quebec. It also had implications for developing a made-in-Canada constitutional amending formula: which parts of the constitution could be amended with how much provincial consent? An alternate version of the theory was that Confederation was a compact between English and French, and could not be revised without the consent of both groups. The implication of that was often taken to be that Quebec represented the French, and whether or not the other provinces had a veto over constitutional amendments, Quebec did!
Municipalities enforce their by-laws through their own investigations and by acting upon complaints from the public. A by-law is only enforceable within the jurisdiction or area that the municipality covers. Although the province can create municipalities, the provinces may only pass on authorities to municipalities that they themselves have. In this particular case, the province and municipality will maintain that this law is within their jurisdiction as it relates to ‘local matters’. The other side of the argument is that the bylaw is a criminal law given its intended purpose and as criminal law falls under federal jurisdiction, and therefore the bylaw is ultra vires and should be
Compare and Contrast Xinjiang, Chechnya, and Quebec In all three of these areas they are trying to achieve some sort of independence. These conflicts are alike in that they involve the struggle of one group to become separate and independent from their home country. In Quebec the movement is peaceful and political. Quebec is trying to be free from Canada because of its dominant French culture in the province. Some people are now satisfied with protected language rights within the Canadian confederation while some still want independence for Quebec.
1st Vriend v Alberta http://www.academia.edu/9595734/Labor_Rights_as_Human_Rights ( very good essay same topics) Vriend demonstrates the importance of the Charter as a guarantee of individual rights. Indeed, many scholars have suggested that workers will be able to make use of the Charter in order to advance their interests against their employers, the state, and even their own unions. (book AU) While the Charter sets a minimal declaration of rights, provincial governments have the ability to extend upon the basic freedoms outlined in the Charter. For example, the Alberta Human Rights Act increases the list of protected classes to include ancestry, occupational status, and sexual orientation among those protected by its provisions.
The social importance of the courts is often simply assumed and considered to be so obvious that neither elaboration or justification is needed. When describing the Canadian court system, it is easy for one to fall into technical detail and thereby simply reinforce the confusion that the average citizen feels when thinking about the complicated maze of courts with bewildering names. However, the modern Canadian court system can be built up logically from just a few basic principals. An overview of these basic principals is necessary to understand how the courts in Canada are organized. Each court has a geographical jurisdiction.
Bonus Assignment A) To what extent was the imposition of liberal principles successful in Aboriginal communities in Canada? In Canada, the impositions of liberal principles in Aboriginal communities were not successful because Aboriginals have their own set of principles which differ from liberal principles. Liberal principles include private property, while Aboriginals believe that the land is there to be shared and enjoyed by all as concluded in the Laws of Nature. They (the Aboriginals) believe that the land belongs to the Creator. Aboriginals believe that people should work together in order to strive for group strength (Laws of Mutual Support).
The charter, subject to the non obstinate clause, is entrenched as the supreme law in Canada. Any law enacted by parliament or provinces that is inconsistent with the Charter will be, to the extent of its inconsistency, without force and effect. Fundamental freedoms will now beyond the reach of provincial (and federal) legislation. One of the happy results of the enactment of the charter is that it will reverse the Dupond decision and enshrine fundamental freedoms and independent constitutional