Your search

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

This article connects the conflict in Canada over formal constitutional amendments—patriation (1982), the Meech Lake (1987) and the Charlottetown (1992) Accords—with constitutional litigation and interpretation. The authors posit that governments and organized social interests compete with and among themselves for constitutional advantage in both forums of constitutional modification, and that outcomes in each forum have predictable consequences for behaviour in the other. Specifically, they argue that conflicts over the “distinct society” (1987) and “Canada” (1992) clauses are best understood as predictable government attempts to regain constitutional resources lost to Charter-based interest groups during the framing of the “reasonable limitation” clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1980–1981) and its subsequent judicial operationalization—the “Oakes test” (1986).The conflicts over theses various “interpretative clauses” were not just about “symbolic Status” or “conflicting constitutional visions,” but about winning Charter cases and accumulating legal resources. The authors develop the corollary argument that “advocacy scholarship” has played a complementary role to litigation in “public interest” groups' use of the Charter to challenge government policies., Cet article associe les conflits au Canada au sujet des amendements constitutionals—le rapatriement (1982), les accords de Meech (1987) et de Charlottetown (1992)—aux litiges et interprétations de la Constitution. Les auteurs postulent que les gouvemements et les organisations défendant des intérêts sociaux rivalisent avec et entre eux pour obtenir un avantage constitutionnel dans les deux forums de modification constitutionnel et que les résultats dans chacun d'eux a produit des conséquences prévisibles sur leur comportement dans l'autre. Plus précisément, ils soutiennent que les conflits au sujet des clauses portant sur la société distincte (1987) et les caractéristiques fondamentales du Canada (1992) peuvent être mieux compris si on les considère comme des tentatives de la part des gouvemements pour regagner des resources constitutionnelles perdues au profit des groupes d'intérêt qui ont articul´ leurs revendications autour de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés au cours du débat portant sur le clause des «limites raisonnables» (1980–1981) ainsi qu'au cours de son opérationalisation judiciaire ultérieure. Les conflits portant sur ces différentes « clauses interprétatives » ne portaient pas uniquement sur le « statut symbolique » ou les « visions constitutionnelles contradictoires », mais aussi sur la nécessité de gagner les causes impliquant la Charte et l'accumulation de ressources légales. Les auteurs mettent de l'avant l'argument corrolaire suivant lequel le «plaidoyer d'érudition » a joué un rôle complémentaire dans l'usage qu'ont fait les groupes d'intérêt de la Charte pour remettre en question les politiques gouvernementales.

This paper argues that there are distinct parallels between changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act enacted by Bill C-31 (2012), in particular the Designated Foreign National regime (DFN), and Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers who arrive by boat. It is contended that recent Australian history and policy demonstrate the perils of adopting an ideology of control and exclusion toward asylum seekers instead of a politics of hospitality, and that Australia’s present political climate provides a stark and salutary warning to Canada, as it follows a similar path of securitization. The paper first explains what is meant by a politics of hospitality. In Part I, it analyzes Australia’s attitude toward, and its treatment of, asylum seekers, focusing in particular on the period since 1989. It is argued that Australia’s inhospitable stance toward asylum seekers has had discernible negative outcomes that provide important lessons for Canada. Part II provides a brief historical overview of Canadian policy toward asylum seekers, followed by an analysis of the DFN regime with reference to international law. It then argues that the DFN provisions contravene the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The paper concludes by suggesting that Canada is at risk of following Australia’s security-oriented, inhospitable stance toward asylum seekers.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

Adult refugee claimants experience several well-documented post-migratory challenges. Little is known about the resettlement process for refugee claimant families with children. This study reports on 75 open-ended, in-depth interviews with refugee claimant families in Montreal about their resettlement challenges and their proposed solutions to them. These interviews were conducted with 33 dyads and triads of children and parents attending a paediatric hospital. Experiences accessing formal and informal child care in Montreal were addressed. Subsequently, a comparative policy analysis was conducted on residency eligibility criteria for child care subsidization. Twenty-eight out of 39 parents (73%) report a lack of informal or formal child care and 15 out of 33 families (39%) propose improving access to formal child care services. They describe a lack of informal child care as a result of reduced social networks, and affordability as a barrier to formal child care services. Refugee claimants are not eligible for subsidized child care in Quebec. A comparative policy analysis within Canada and comparable countries reveals that this situation is not unique to Quebec. However, most provinces and European countries offer child care subsidies to refugee claimants. Refugee claimants should qualify for child care subsidies. Social workers and community organizations should consider their clients' child care needs in designing programmes and services.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

During Justice Louis LeBel’s fifteen-year tenure at the Supreme Court of Canada, Québec’s distinct character was taken into account in several decisions, for example in cases involving the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or language rights. Although Québec was not always victorious, the Supreme Court still recognized the legitimacy of Québec’s language policy and, as a result, gave Québec more control over admissions to English-language schools than is evident at first sight. However, the most significant recognition of Québec’s specificity is found in cases connected with the constitutional amending formula. In some of its key decisions, the Supreme Court adopted a “contractual” vision of the origins of Canada’s constitution and interpreted it in a way explicitly intended to provide protection for the interests of the provinces, including Québec’s specific interests.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.