The past, present and future of law reform in Canada

Marc T. Moore
{"title":"The past, present and future of law reform in Canada","authors":"Marc T. Moore","doi":"10.1080/20508840.2018.1476114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The story of institutional law reform in Canada has been described by one veteran as ‘somewhat troubling.’ It is a story not without significant successes: In Québec civil law, the codifications were remarkable achievements which realised sweeping and highly-esteemed reforms. Among Canadian common law provinces, Ontario founded the Commonwealth’s first law reform commission in 1964, and as early as 1967 Alberta innovated the now internationally-influential joint venture design of its commission. Further, Canada’s original national commission was notable for its ambitious pursuit of social issues, and the second national commission challenged conventional legal paradigms at unparalleled depth. Across the country, many law commissions were established. Yet, what is ‘troubling’ is how many, including long-established and prominent commissions, were since closed or constrained, impeded from accomplishing what they might have. Meanwhile, in Québec civil law, the codifiers’ repeated calls for a permanent commission have gone unheeded. What does the future hold for institutional law reform in Canada? In Québec civil law, there are some signs of movement towards reform continuity. An important question will be whether processes of continuous incremental reform can be developed and managed to alleviate reliance on overwhelming legal overhauls. Elsewhere in Canada, a few Canadian provinces that shuttered commissions have since re-established them in altered forms. The common themes of austerity, ideology, and alleged redundancy in the downfall of past Canadian commissions remain an ever present concern to the survivors, as they simultaneously confront newly emerging challenges. Time will tell whether, because of their experience in reforming themselves in response to their troubling story to date, Canada’s law commissions may be best-positioned to meet institutional law reform’s challenges of the future.","PeriodicalId":42455,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Practice of Legislation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20508840.2018.1476114","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory and Practice of Legislation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20508840.2018.1476114","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT The story of institutional law reform in Canada has been described by one veteran as ‘somewhat troubling.’ It is a story not without significant successes: In Québec civil law, the codifications were remarkable achievements which realised sweeping and highly-esteemed reforms. Among Canadian common law provinces, Ontario founded the Commonwealth’s first law reform commission in 1964, and as early as 1967 Alberta innovated the now internationally-influential joint venture design of its commission. Further, Canada’s original national commission was notable for its ambitious pursuit of social issues, and the second national commission challenged conventional legal paradigms at unparalleled depth. Across the country, many law commissions were established. Yet, what is ‘troubling’ is how many, including long-established and prominent commissions, were since closed or constrained, impeded from accomplishing what they might have. Meanwhile, in Québec civil law, the codifiers’ repeated calls for a permanent commission have gone unheeded. What does the future hold for institutional law reform in Canada? In Québec civil law, there are some signs of movement towards reform continuity. An important question will be whether processes of continuous incremental reform can be developed and managed to alleviate reliance on overwhelming legal overhauls. Elsewhere in Canada, a few Canadian provinces that shuttered commissions have since re-established them in altered forms. The common themes of austerity, ideology, and alleged redundancy in the downfall of past Canadian commissions remain an ever present concern to the survivors, as they simultaneously confront newly emerging challenges. Time will tell whether, because of their experience in reforming themselves in response to their troubling story to date, Canada’s law commissions may be best-positioned to meet institutional law reform’s challenges of the future.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
加拿大法律改革的过去、现在和未来
摘要加拿大机构法改革的故事被一位资深人士描述为“有些令人不安”这是一个并非没有重大成功的故事:在魁北克民法中,编纂工作取得了显著成就,实现了全面而备受尊敬的改革。在加拿大的普通法省份中,安大略省于1964年成立了英联邦第一个法律改革委员会,早在1967年,阿尔伯塔省就创新了其委员会的合资设计,该设计现在具有国际影响力。此外,加拿大最初的国家委员会以其对社会问题的雄心勃勃的追求而闻名,第二个国家委员会以前所未有的深度挑战传统法律范式。在全国各地,成立了许多法律委员会。然而,“令人不安”的是,有多少委员会,包括成立已久的知名委员会,后来被关闭或受到限制,无法完成他们可能拥有的任务。与此同时,在魁北克民法中,编纂者一再呼吁成立一个常设委员会,但却被忽视了。加拿大机构法改革的前景如何?在魁北克民法中,有一些迹象表明改革的连续性。一个重要的问题是,能否制定和管理持续渐进的改革进程,以减轻对压倒性的法律改革的依赖。在加拿大其他地方,一些关闭委员会的加拿大省份后来以改变的形式重新建立了委员会。紧缩、意识形态和过去加拿大委员会垮台中所谓的冗余等共同主题仍然是幸存者们一直关注的问题,因为他们同时面临着新出现的挑战。时间会告诉我们,由于加拿大法律委员会迄今为止在应对其令人不安的故事方面的改革经验,它们是否最适合应对未来机构法律改革的挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: The Theory and Practice of Legislation aims to offer an international and interdisciplinary forum for the examination of legislation. The focus of the journal, which succeeds the former title Legisprudence, remains with legislation in its broadest sense. Legislation is seen as both process and product, reflection of theoretical assumptions and a skill. The journal addresses formal legislation, and its alternatives (such as covenants, regulation by non-state actors etc.). The editors welcome articles on systematic (as opposed to historical) issues, including drafting techniques, the introduction of open standards, evidence-based drafting, pre- and post-legislative scrutiny for effectiveness and efficiency, the utility and necessity of codification, IT in legislation, the legitimacy of legislation in view of fundamental principles and rights, law and language, and the link between legislator and judge. Comparative and interdisciplinary approaches are encouraged. But dogmatic descriptions of positive law are outside the scope of the journal. The journal offers a combination of themed issues and general issues. All articles are submitted to double blind review.
期刊最新文献
Regulatory capture in energy sector: evidence from Indonesia Operationalisation of legislation and the will of legislators in the judgments of international courts of war crimes and post-war recovery Observing law-making patterns in times of crisis Exploring the relationship between law and governance: a proposal Governing during the COVID-19 pandemic
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1