Nothing as thrilling a reference, a statement of law by the Supreme Court of Canada on the request of a province or the Federal Government. I'm getting woozie just thinking about it. A tidy summary of what is what in today's reference is here:
The government of Quebec submitted questions concerning the constitutional validity of ss. 22 and 23 of the Employment Insurance Act to the Court of Appeal. In essence, these provisions allow a woman who is not working because she is pregnant, and a person who is absent from the workplace to care for a newborn or an adopted child, to receive employment insurance benefits. The Court of Appeal issued an opinion to the effect that ss. 22 and 23 are unconstitutional because the matters to which they apply are under provincial jurisdiction.So the question is who gets to make the laws in the area of life in question. Wow.
Hmm..how to read one of these things. First skip everything until the paragraphs get numbered then (dumdeedum) skip the question statement and (flipflipflip) the positions of the parties and (zippppp) the summary of the ruling or rulings below. In fact, skip all the way to paragraph 76 and 77 of 78 to find out how it turned out - this isn't a novel, you know:
The evolution of the scope of a constitutional head of power cannot result in encroachment on a power assigned to another level of government. A review of the historical and legal contexts makes it possible to identify the essential characteristics onto which new realities can be grafted...The evolution of the role of women in the labour market and of the role of fathers in child care are two social factors that have had an undeniable economic impact on individuals who are active participants in the labour market. A generous interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution permits social change to be taken into account. The provincial legislatures have jurisdiction over social programs, but Parliament also has the power to provide income replacement benefits to parents who must take time off work to give birth to or care for children. The provision of income replacement benefits during maternity leave and parental leave does not trench on the provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights and may validly be included in the EIA.Well, there you have it. Ripping good stuff. Dynamism in societal shifts reflected in law. Not a bit of concern what some fogies of the past laid down as the way things would be. Fab. Now go read it all to find out why.
Comments
ry - October 21, 2005 12:10 AM
NOt sure I'm with you on this one Alan. Don't know the ins and outs of Canadian constitutionality, but I've always held that what the old fogies meant mattered. If you want something new, vote on it. Isn't that what republics do? Don't oligarchies rule top down with elites deciding what is 'enlightened'---which I've always equated with intellectual fads? I could be wrong. Feel free to chew me out or take it to John's and chew me out there too.
Alan - October 21, 2005 7:57 AM
I'd never chew you out but we live in the tree up here, ry, not in the past. One of the most extraordinary things about the US constitution is that it reflects a golden era of great thinkers who existed at a moment of British weakness and took advantage of it to build a wonderful new thing. The downside is that, for many, it locked in the only golden age - their intellectual fad. They had great ideas but not all of them. They alsowere not the only folk with great ideas. I am far more comfortable with our system that tries to reflect society as it exists in law rather than what it was once conceived to be, however wisely.
ry - October 21, 2005 12:55 PM
My problem is that the laws could be inconstant, at least theoretically. If society changes you change the laws, by adding stuff or taking stuff out, instead of just re-interpret. You can still get the great ideas into law this. Maybe it's a perspective thing, but re-interpretation seems to me to be not rule of law but instead rule of man's passions.