Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T16:09:07.695Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Law and the “Patriation” of the Canadian Constitution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

Edward Mcwhinney
Edward Mcwhinney*
Affiliation:
Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C.
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes and Comments
Information
Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 21 , 1984 , pp. 294 - 301
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Council on International Law / Conseil Canadien de Droit International, representing the Board of Editors, Canadian Yearbook of International Law / Comité de Rédaction, Annuaire Canadien de Droit International 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Canada and the Constitution 1979–1982: Patriation and the Charter of Rights (1982); and see also, “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: The Lessons of Comparative Jurisprudence,” 61 Can. Bar Rev. 55 (1983).

2 SirJennings, Ivor, “The Statute of Westminster and Appeals to the Privy Council,” 52 L.Q. Rev. 173 (1936).Google Scholar

3 [1935] A.C. 494.

4 Attorney-General for Ontario v. Attorney-General for Canada, [1947] A.C. 127 (P.C.).

5 See my early study, “‘Sovereignty’ in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth Countries at the Present Day,” 68 Pol. Sci. Q. 511 (1953). And see also Latham, R. T. E., “The Law and the Commonwealth,” in Survey of British Commonwealth Affairs, Hancock, W. K. (ed.), (1937), vol. 1, at 533 et seq.;Google Scholar Mansergh, Nicholas, The Commonwealth Experience (rev. ed.), vols, 1 and 2 (1984).Google Scholar

6 United Kingdom, House of Commons, First Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 1980–81, British North America Acts: The Rôle of Parliament, January 21, 1981), Vol. 1, para. 73, at xl; para. 86, at xlvi; para. 103, at li.

7 Compare, in this regard, the vigorous editorial comments of The Economist (London), April 11, 1982, at 52: “Those British members of parliament who have lately been talking about ‘the imperial parliament’s rôle as trustee’ seem to have relapsed into thinking in 1867 terms. Canada passed out of British tutelage several generations ago.”

8 Government of Canada, the Hon. Chrétien, Jean, Minister of Justice, The Rôle of the United Kingdom in the Amendment of the Canadian Constitution: Background Paper (March 1981), especially paras. 51–54, at 24-25 (Kershaw Report: Inadequacy of Evidence).Google Scholar

9 See her various comments, as reported, Globe and Mail (Toronto), February 4, 1981; The Times (London), December 10, 1980.

10 Prime Minister Thatcher, Reply to Question by Robin Maxwell Hyslop (Conservative), December g, 1980; The Times, December 10, 1980. And see also the testimony by J. R. Freeland, Second Legal Adviser, British Foreign and Commonwealth Ministry, as reported, United Kingdom, House of Commons, First Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 1980–81 (January 21, 1981), vol. 2, at 62–68 (Examination of Witnesses, November 12, 1980).