Canadian Constitutional Law

France amended its constitution last week with the goal of "modernizing its institutions." Much of the media coverage has focused on the changes that affect the balance of power between the president and the Parliament, but an even more important change has received little notice: a new provision will allow individuals, for the first time, to assert their constitutional rights before French courts, and authorize courts to invalidate unconstitutional laws (New Art. 61-1  and amended Art. 62).

This commentary was published in the National Post on September 11, 2008.

In the spring of this year, the government established an advisory committee to assess candidates to fill the vacancy left on the Supreme Court of Canada by the resignation of Justice Michel Bastarache. Unfortunately, the committee has fallen victim to infighting between government and opposition. The squabbling has been used as an excuse by the Prime Minister to bypass the committee altogether and to unilaterally nominate Justice Thomas Cromwell of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal in a clear departure from the selection procedure announced by Justice Minister Rob Nicholls on May 28.

Even so, since the nomination must also run the scrutiny of yet another House of Commons committee -- which cannot be established till after the election-- it is clear that the vacancy on the Supreme Court will not be filled till late this year at the earliest, and probably not till early 2009. As Canada’s most senior court, with a heavy case load and awesome responsibilities, the court surely deserved better treatment. We are also entitled to ask: How could the selection procedure have become so distorted and what can be done to avoid the same thing happening in the future?

This commentary was published in the National Post on November 4, 2008. It was originally published in Canadian Jewish News.

In recent months, I have been invited to participate in two conferences, one put on by the Ontario Bar Association (OBA) and the other by Osgoode Hall Law School. Both are squarely in my fields -- the former dealing with freedom of speech and human rights law, and the latter dealing with law, democracy and the Middle East conflict. I was pleased to be invited -- what more does a professor want than to pontificate to audiences in his field? My problem is that each of these conferences has demonstrated that, contrary to my preferred self-image, I can occasionally be wrong.

The OBA's conference, which explored the recent human rights case against writer Mark Steyn and Maclean's magazine, showed that my views on the regulation of hateful speech may have been misguided. The Osgoode Hall conference, which posed the question "Israel/Palestine:One State or Two?" showed that my faith in rational dialogue and academic debate may also have been misguided.

Let me examine each of them in turn.

On Friday, Dec. 5, 2008 the University of Toronto Faculty of Law hosted a panel discussion about the Governor-General's decision to prorogue parliament. The following is a summary of the remarks made by panelist Peter Russell.

Constitutional conventions
This has been a period of great uncertainty about some of the “unwritten” conventions of our constitution. Most of the principles and rules about operating our system of parliamentary democracy take this form. In the final analysis what these principles and rules are depends on all of us – on the people – so it is certainly good to see you who are here today and so many others concerned about these issues.

On Friday, Dec. 5, 2008 the University of Toronto Faculty of Law hosted a panel discussion about the Governor-General's decision to prorogue parliament. The panel included leading constitutional scholars and politicians.

Many of the participants have expressed an interest in continuing the discussion, and will be posting a summary of their remarks from the panel directly to the faculty blog.

A webcast of the panel is now available: click here to view the webcast
Information regarding the panelists can be found here.

On Friday, Dec. 5, 2008 the University of Toronto Faculty of Law hosted a panel discussion about the Governor-General's decision to prorogue parliament. The following is a summary of the remarks made by panelist Lorne Sossin.

In light of the presentations, questions and comments on the panel, there are three broad constitutional principles imperiled by the recent decision by the Governor General to prorogue Parliament and its fallout:

There is a disturbing trend in much of the commentary precipitated by the events of the last two weeks culminating in Governor General Michaël Jean’s decision to prorogue Parliament. Much of the commentary rightly notes that the decision to prorogue, and even to dissolve Parliament, is a prerogative and, therefore, a matter of discretion that rests solely with the Governor General. Most commentators appear to agree that this discretion enables the Governor General to actively intervene in Canadian political life, the only question remaining is in what direction. At that point, political preferences usually enter into the discussion and determine the way in which that discretion should be exercised.

Yet it should be apparent that the Governor General is expected to steer clear of political controversies and so should exercise her discretion in ways that minimize her meddling in Canadian Parliamentary affairs. The Governor General should be guided less by the dictates of political partisanship, then, and more by the principles of democracy and responsible government. The Governor General’s actions should be guided principally by considerations that do the utmost to respect the will of Parliament and, ultimately, the people. It is Parliament which, conveniently for the Governor General, is the barometer of the people’s will as expressed periodically through the electoral process.

In a commentary in the National Post, Professors Lorraine Weinrib and Lorne Sossin argue that the Governor-General's decision-making should be public and transparent in situations such as the recent request by the Prime Minister to prorogue Parliament ("Canada's constitutional 'black box'," December 11, 2008).

Last Thursday, Governor-General Michaelle Jean granted a request from Prime Minister Stephen Harper to prorogue Parliament until late-January. She thus protected the Conservative government from a confidence vote that would have likely toppled the minority government, and perhaps prompted her to invite a Liberal-NDP coalition, supported by the Bloc Quebecois, to form a government. We would like to be in a position to share with you the arguments that the Prime Minister submitted to the Governor-General and her reasons for accepting them.