|
|
William Watson, "From the editor's desktop" Sorry, an abstract of this article is not available. "We didn't volunteer" by the Hon. Bertha Wilson Judges did not seize the power to decide that legislatures were in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: The people gave them that power in 1982. The notwithstanding clause is a reasonable way of maintaining the historic principle of parliamentary sovereignty, which the United Kingdom, where the idea developed, seems on the verge of abandoning. "Reform's judicial agenda" by Peter Russell The Reform Party deserves an "A" for raising issues of judicial reform that the old-line parties have studiously avoided. And its leader gets a "B+" for the idea that Supreme Court nominees be interviewed by, and Court decisions reviewed by, a parliamentary committee. But his party gets an "F" for proposing that all federal judicial appointments be handed over to provincial legislatures. A rebuttal by E. Preston Manning, leader of the Reform Party, follows the article as well as a response by Mr. Russell. "The charter dialogue between courts and legislatures" by Peter W. Hogg and Allison A. Thornton Critics of judicial review are at least partly right: Under the Charter, the law is in large part what judges say it is. On the other hand, the notwithstanding clause gives legislatures a powerful tool for overriding what judges say, while the record of Charter cases suggests that what goes on in practice is a dialogue between the nominated judges and elected legislators. "Dialogue or monologue" by F.L. Morton Peter Hogg and Allison Thornton's theory that courts and legislatures are involved in a "Charter dialogue" is inaccurate. In cases when: public opinion is polarized between two intense minorities, the majority is relativelyindifferent, and the issue cuts across party lines, there are strong incentives for governments to accept whatever the courts decide. When they create a new policy status quo, Charter decisions shift the burden of political mobilization to the losing minority interest. "The activist constitution" by Lorraine Eisenstat Weinrib Neo-conservative critics condemn Charter interpretation as the judicial imposition of naked preferences. Yet judicial interpretation is firmly grounded in the Charter's text and political history and Canada's institutional structure and postwar social model. The critics reserve their praise for judges who do exactly what they decry - impose their own personal, conservative values not found in the Charter. "Courts don't make good compromises" by Rainer Knopff In deciding contentious issues such as abortion or gay rights, Canadian courts have often opted for clean, "non-judgmental" solutions. In fact, "non-judgmentalism" usually decides the issue in favour of one of the extreme positions. What is needed when emotions run high are (often messy) compromises of the sort that legislatures, but not courts, are good at brokering. "La charte et la légitimation de l'activisme judiciaire" by Sébastien Lebel-Grenier The introduction of the Charter has contributed to an anti-democratic drift in Canada. The Charter often is not accessible to those excluded groups who should benefit most from its protections, while even the limited willingness of the courts to supplant democratic decision-making has encouraged governments to avoid making policy in difficult areas. "Fair-shares federalism and the 1999 federal budget" by Thomas J. Courchene The $11.5 billion that Mr. Martin added to the CHST over the next five years doubtless will be good for the health care system, but it has also helped to finesse a potentially difficult zero-sum interprovincial redistribution as all provinces are moved to equal per capita CHST grants. The unexpected increase in equalization payments probably helped provide political cover for this sensible, inevitable but also difficult transition "Paul Martin: 'Big Spender'" by Jim Stanford Paul Martin's sixth budget was conservative in every sense of the word. It devotes much more to debt reduction than the Liberals promised in the 1997 election. And it continues to shortchange public expenditure, which bore the brunt of the war on the deficit. Mr. Martin could have - and should have - increased spending three times as much as he did without jeopardizing his budget balance. "Only a small step toward restoring living standards" by Geoffrey Hale Mr. Martin's latest budget does very little to restore Canadians' disposable income, which, mainly because of tax increases, is not yet back to its 1989 level. The tax cuts the budget does provide do not fully offset the effects of bracket creep and the CPP premium increases announced last year. "Let's cut Paul Martin some slack" by Patrick Grady Paul Martin's pragmatic approach to budgeting is paying off big-time: Just about every fiscal indicator is moving in the right direction, and substantially so. People need to understand, however, that the last-minute booking of current spending to future years is a fundamental part of the strategy of prudence. Without it, too much of the fiscal dividend will end up going to debt reduction, rather than tax cuts or spending. "Should hate speech be banned? A debate" Jonathan Kay, Warren Kinsella and George Jonas Whether hate speech should be censored by the government has become one of the great constitutional questions of our time, and the subject of no fewer than three Supreme Court of Canada decisions in the last 10 years, involving James Keegstra (1990), Ernst Zundel (1992), and Malcolm Ross (1996). To explore the issue of whether the state should have the right to censor hateful expression, Jonathan Kay of the National Post editorial board recently interviewed Warren Kinsella and George Jonas. Mr. Kinsella is the author of Web of Hate: Inside Canada's Far Right Network, and is a long-standing defender of Canada's anti-hate policies. Mr. Jonas is a novelist, playwright and Southam columnist. Here is an edited transcript of their discussion, a shorter version of which appeared in the National Post. "Why is violent crime declining?" by Neil Boyd Rates of violent crime fluctuate from year to year but have been trending down for the last two decades. Better policing techniques, including Giuliani-style zero-tolerance, may play some role, but the most convincing explanation is a decline in the proportion of young males in the population. Demography isn't everything, but projections suggest the coast is clear for at least another two decades. "Four views of the social union: a discussion" Keith Banting, John Richards, Claude Ryan and Sherry Thompson In a conference call March 4, Policy Options editor William Watson asked four informed observers of federal-provincial affairs for their reaction to the social union agreement signed exactly one month earlier by the federal government and all the provinces and territories except Quebec. The four were: Keith Banting, Director of the School of Policy Studies at Queen's University; John Richards, professor in the Faculty of Business at Simon Fraser University and adjunct scholar at the C. D. Howe Institute; Claude Ryan, former leader of the Quebec Liberal Party and minister in the Bourassa government; and Sherry Thompson, formerly of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs Alberta and now a research fellow with the Canadian Policy Research Networks. Book review: Allan Gotlieb reviews Robert Wolfe's Diplomatic Missions: The Ambassador in Canadian Foreign Policy Sorry, an abstract of this article is not available. |
