| dc.description.abstract |
Abstract . Rights jiirisprudence in Canada dates back as far as Confederation in
1867. Between this date and 1982, the organizing principle of Confederation -
federalism - has kept this jurisprudence solely within the supremacy of
Parliament, subject to its confines and division of powers. After 1982, however, a
new constitutional organizing principle was introduced, when Prime Minister
Pierre Trudeau introduced the patriation initiative, touted as the "people's
package". Individual rights and freedoms were now guaranteed by the
Constitution. Citizens of Canada now had a direct link to the Constitution via the
Charter and there were now two significantly different organizing principles
within the constitutional order widch created an unstable coexistence. This
instability has led to a clash between judicially enforced Charter rights and
federalism. The Charter has since had both a nationalizing and centralizing
effect on Canadian federalism.
This thesis explores the relationship between rights and federalism in Canada
fix)m Confederation to present day by comparing the jurisprudence of pre and post
Charter Canada. An analysis of Supreme Court's (and its predecessor's, the
JCPC) decisions shows the profound effect the Charter has had on Canadian
federalism. The result has been an undermining of federalism in Canada, with
Parliamentary Supremacy replaced by Constitutional supremacy, and ultimately.
Judicial Supremacy. Moreover, rights discourse has largely replaced federalism
discourse. Canadians have become very attached to their Charter, and are
unwilling to allow any changes to the constitution that may affect their rights as
political elites discovered the hard way after the collapse of the Meech and
Charlottetown Accords. If federalism is to remain a relevant and viable
organizing principle in the Constitution, then governments, especially at the
provincial level, must find new and iimovative ways to assert their importance
within the federation. |
en_US |