Chief of the Defence Staff (Canada)
The Chief of the Defence Staff is the second most senior member of the Canadian Armed Forces and heads the Armed Forces Council, having primary responsibility for command and administration of the forces, as well as military strategy and requirements. The position is held by a senior member of one of the three main branches of the Canadian Armed Forces; the current CDS, since 17 July 2015, is Jonathan Vance. Until 1964, there existed a Chief of the Naval Staff, as head of the Royal Canadian Navy. A position known as the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee existed, which had a loose coordination function, although it lacked the command and control responsibilities of the position of Chief of the Defence Staff; the position of Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee and the positions of the three service chiefs were abolished in 1964 and replaced by the position of CDS. This change was based on a white paper initiated by Paul Hellyer, Minister of National Defence in the Cabinet headed by Lester B.
Pearson. Following the tabling of the white paper, the minister introduced legislation that took effect in August 1964; the newly established Chief of the Defence Staff was to "head all of Canada's military forces, backed by a defence headquarters, integrated and restructured to reflect six so-called functional commands, replacing eleven former service commands. Functional described a command, non-geographic and beyond any particular service or traditional arm." In May 1967, Bill C-243 was passed by parliament and was effective as of 1 February 1968. The law dissolved the three armed services and created the Canadian Armed Forces under the command of the CDS. In 2011, the three functional commands—named Maritime Command, Land Force Command, Air Command—had their original names reinstated, becoming once again the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army, Royal Canadian Air Force, respectively; the Chief of the Defence Staff follows in rank only the Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces, who appoints the CDS and is the person from whom the CDS receives his or her orders.
In practice, the commander-in-chief—the Canadian monarch, represented by the governor general—typically acts only on the advice of his or her ministers of the Crown, meaning the CDS reports directly to the Minister of National Defence. The CDS has been charged with four main priorities, each having multiple sub-priorities: The first is to conduct operations, which includes the successful implementation of domestic and international operations, protection of the forces through a culture of risk management, ensuring that recruitment is at a level required to sustain the operational forces at full potential to meet their commitments. Secondly, the CDS is expected to expand the regular and reserve forces to meet international and domestic obligations, which means the management of the Canadian Forces Recruiting Group so as to streamline the enlistment process of new forces members; the third task is to implement the national defence strategy as outlined by the Queen-in-Council, requiring both the acquisition of new equipment and the strengthening of diplomatic relations via the United Nations, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, North American Aerospace Defence Command."
Lastly, the CDS must enhance the forces' programme delivery while optimising the use of resources. The CDS is the Chair of the Canadian Forces Decorations Advisory Committee, which reviews and recommends to the governor general members of the forces eligible to receive decorations for valour and meritorious service, as well as Commander-in-Chief Unit Commendations; this committee mirrors that for the Order of Military Merit, of which the CDS is ex-officio a member and the Principal Commander. Separately, the CDS presents the Chief of the Defence Staff Commendation to recognise activity or service beyond regular expectations, it can be presented to members of the Canadian Forces, civilian members of the Defence Team, members of an allied foreign military. The insignia for wear has the form of a gold bar bearing three gold maple leaves and the award comes with a scroll bearing the citation; the CDS awards the Canadian Forces Medallion for Distinguished Service, given by the CDS on behalf of the entire forces.
Chief of the Defence Force Chief of the Defence Staff Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Department of National Defence: Chief of the Defence Staff National Defence Act
A Cabinet is a body of high-ranking state officials consisting of the top leaders of the executive branch. Members of a cabinet are called Cabinet ministers or secretaries; the function of a Cabinet varies: in some countries it is a collegiate decision-making body with collective responsibility, while in others it may function either as a purely advisory body or an assisting institution to a decision making head of state or head of government. Cabinets are the body responsible for the day-to-day management of the government and response to sudden events, whereas the legislative and judicial branches work in a measured pace, in sessions according to lengthy procedures. In some countries those that use a parliamentary system, the Cabinet collectively decides the government's direction in regard to legislation passed by the parliament. In countries with a presidential system, such as the United States, the Cabinet does not function as a collective legislative influence. In this way, the President obtains opinions and advice relating to forthcoming decisions.
Under both types of system, the Westminster variant of a parliamentary system and the presidential system, the Cabinet "advises" the Head of State: the difference is that, in a parliamentary system, the monarch, viceroy or ceremonial president will always follow this advice, whereas in a presidential system, a president, head of government and political leader may depart from the Cabinet's advice if they do not agree with it. In practice, in nearly all parliamentary democracies that do not follow the Westminster system, in three countries that do often the Cabinet does not "advise" the Head of State as they play only a ceremonial role. Instead, it is the head of government who holds all means of power in their hands and to whom the Cabinet reports; the second role of cabinet officials is to administer executive branches, government agencies, or departments. In the United States federal government, these are the federal executive departments. Cabinets are important originators for legislation.
Cabinets and ministers are in charge of the preparation of proposed legislation in the ministries before it is passed to the parliament. Thus the majority of new legislation originates from the cabinet and its ministries. In most governments, members of the Cabinet are given the title of Minister, each holds a different portfolio of government duties. In a few governments, as in the case of Mexico, the Philippines, the United Kingdom, United States, the title of Secretary is used for some Cabinet members. In many countries, a Secretary is a cabinet member with an inferior rank to a Minister. In Finland, a Secretary of State is a career official. In some countries, the Cabinet is known by names such as "Council of Ministers", "Government Council" or "Council of State", or by lesser known names such as "Federal Council", "Inner Council" or "High Council"; these countries may differ in the way that the cabinet is established. The supranational European Union uses a different convention: the European Commission refers to its executive cabinet as a "college", with its top public officials referred to as "commissioners", whereas a "European Commission cabinet" is the personal office of a European Commissioner.
In presidential systems such as the United States, members of the Cabinet are chosen by the president, may have to be confirmed by one or both of the houses of the legislature. In most presidential systems, cabinet members cannot be sitting legislators, legislators who are offered appointments must resign if they wish to accept. In parliamentary systems, several different policies exist with regard to whether legislators can be Cabinet ministers: cabinet members must, must not, or may be members of parliament, depending on the country. In the United Kingdom, cabinet ministers are mandatorily appointed from among sitting members of the parliament. In countries with a strict separation between the executive and legislative branches of government, e.g. Luxembourg and Belgium, cabinet members have to give up their seat in parliament; the intermediate case is when ministers are members of parliament, but are not required to be, as in Finland. The candidate prime minister and/or the president selects the individual ministers to be proposed to the parliament, which may accept or reject the proposed cabinet composition.
Unlike in a presidential system, the cabinet in a parliamentary system must not only be confirmed, but enjoy the continuing confidence of the parliament: a parliament can pass a motion of no confidence to remove a government or individual ministers. But not these votes are taken across party lines. In some countries attorneys general sit in the cabinet, while in many others this is prohibited as the attorneys general are considered to be part of the judicial branch of government. Instead, there is a minister of justice, separate from the attorney general. Furthermore, in Sweden and Estonia, the cabinet includes a Chancellor of Justice, a civil servant that acts as the legal counsel to the cabinet. In multi-party systems, the formation of a government may require the support of multiple parties. Thus, a coalition government is formed. Continued cooperation between the participating political parties is nece
Governor General of Canada
The Governor General of Canada is the federal viceregal representative of the Canadian monarch Queen Elizabeth II. The person of the sovereign is shared both with the 15 other Commonwealth realms and the 10 provinces of Canada, but resides predominantly in her oldest and most populous realm, the United Kingdom; the Queen, on the advice of her Canadian prime minister, appoints a governor general to carry out most of her constitutional and ceremonial duties. The commission is for an unfixed period of time—known as serving at Her Majesty's pleasure—though five years is the normal convention. Beginning in 1959, it has been traditional to rotate between anglophone and francophone officeholders—although many recent governors general have been bilingual. Once in office, the governor general maintains direct contact with the Queen, wherever she may be at the time; the office began in the 16th and 17th centuries with the Crown-appointed governors of the French colony of Canada followed by the British governors of Canada in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Subsequently, the office is, along with the Crown, the oldest continuous institution in Canada. The present incarnation of the office emerged with Canadian Confederation and the passing of the British North America Act, 1867, which defines the role of the governor general as "carrying on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the Name of the Queen, by whatever Title he is designated". Although the post still represented the government of the United Kingdom, the office was Canadianized until, with the passage of the Statute of Westminster in 1931 and the establishment of a separate and uniquely Canadian monarchy, the governor general become the direct personal representative of the independently and uniquely Canadian sovereign, the monarch in his Canadian council. Throughout this process of increasing Canadian independence, the role of governor general took on additional responsibilities. For example, in 1904, the Militia Act granted permission for the governor general to use the title of Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian militia, in the name of the sovereign and actual Commander-in-Chief, in 1927 the first official international visit by a governor general was made.
In 1947, King George VI issued letters patent allowing the viceroy to carry out all of the monarch's powers on his or her behalf. As a result, the day-to-day duties of the monarch are carried out by the governor general, although, as a matter of law, the governor general is not in the same constitutional position as the sovereign. In accordance with the Constitution Act, 1982, any constitutional amendment that affects the Crown, including the office of the Governor General, requires the unanimous consent of each provincial legislature as well as the federal parliament; the current governor general is Julie Payette, who has served since 2 October 2017. The Government of Canada spells the title governor general without a hyphen; the Canadian media still use the governor-general spelling. As governor is the noun in the title, it is pluralized. Moreover, both terms are capitalized; the position of governor general is mandated by both the Constitution Act, 1867 and the letters patent issued in 1947 by King George VI.
As such, on the recommendation of his or her Canadian prime minister, the Canadian monarch appoints the governor general by commission issued under the royal sign-manual and Great Seal of Canada. That individual is, from until being sworn-in, referred to as the governor general-designate. Besides the administration of the oaths of office, there is no set formula for the swearing-in of a governor general-designate. Though there may therefore be variations to the following, the appointee will travel to Ottawa, there receiving an official welcome and taking up residence at 7 Rideau Gate, will begin preparations for their upcoming role, meeting with various high level officials to ensure a smooth transition between governors general; the sovereign will hold an audience with the appointee and will at that time induct both the governor general-designate and his or her spouse into the Order of Canada as Companions, as well as appointing the former as a Commander of both the Order of Military Merit and the Order of Merit of the Police Forces.
The incumbent will serve for at least five years, though this is only a developed convention, the governor general still technically acts at Her Majesty's pleasure. The prime minister may therefore recommend to the Queen that the viceroy remain in her service for a longer period of time, sometimes upwards of more than seven years. A governor general may resign, two have died in office. In such a circumstance, or if the governor general leaves the country for longer than one month, the Chief Justice of Canada serves as Administrator of the Government and exercises all powers of the governor general. In a speech on the subject of confederation, made in 1866 to the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada, John A. Macdonald said of the planned governor: "We place no restriction on Her Majesty's prerogative in the selection of her representative... The sovereign has unrestricted freedom of choice... We leave that to Her Majes
In English law, natural justice is technical terminology for the rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing. While the term natural justice is retained as a general concept, it has been replaced and extended by the general "duty to act fairly"; the basis for the rule against bias is the need to maintain public confidence in the legal system. Bias can take the form of imputed bias or apparent bias. Actual bias is difficult to prove in practice while imputed bias, once shown, will result in a decision being void without the need for any investigation into the likelihood or suspicion of bias. Cases from different jurisdictions apply two tests for apparent bias: the "reasonable suspicion of bias" test and the "real likelihood of bias" test. One view, taken is that the differences between these two tests are semantic and that they operate similarly; the right to a fair hearing requires that individuals should not be penalized by decisions affecting their rights or legitimate expectations unless they have been given prior notice of the case, a fair opportunity to answer it, the opportunity to present their own case.
The mere fact that a decision affects rights or interests is sufficient to subject the decision to the procedures required by natural justice. In Europe, the right to a fair hearing is guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, said to complement the common law rather than replace it. Natural justice is a term of art that denotes specific procedural rights in the English legal system and the systems of other nations based on it, it is similar to the American concepts of fair procedure and procedural due process, the latter having roots that to some degree parallel the origins of natural justice. Although natural justice has an impressive ancestry and is said to express the close relationship between the common law and moral principles, the use of the term today is not to be confused with the "natural law" of the Canonists, the mediaeval philosophers' visions of an "ideal pattern of society" or the "natural rights" philosophy of the 18th century. Whilst the term natural justice is retained as a general concept, in jurisdictions such as Australia,:583 and the United Kingdom,:320 it has been replaced and extended by the more general "duty to act fairly".
Natural justice is identified with the two constituents of a fair hearing,:322 which are the rule against bias, the right to a fair hearing. The requirements of natural justice or a duty to act depend on the context.:584–585 In Baker v. Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada set out a list of non-exhaustive factors that would influence the content of the duty of fairness, including the nature of the decision being made and the process followed in making it, the statutory scheme under which the decision-maker operates, the importance of the decision to the person challenging it, the person's legitimate expectations, the choice of procedure made by the decision-maker. Earlier, in Knight v. Indian Head School Division No. 19, the Supreme Court held that public authorities which make decisions of a legislative and general nature do not have a duty to act while those that carry out acts of a more administrative and specific nature do. Furthermore, preliminary decisions will not trigger the duty to act but decisions of a more final nature may have such an effect.
In addition, whether a duty to act applies depends on the relationship between the public authority and the individual. No duty exists where the relationship is one of master and servant, or where the individual holds office at the pleasure of the authority. On the other hand, a duty to act exists where the individual cannot be removed from office except for cause. A right to procedural fairness only exists when an authority's decision is significant and has an important impact on the individual. A person is barred from deciding any case in which he or she may be, or may be suspected to be, biased; this principle embodies the basic concept of impartiality, applies to courts of law, tribunals and all those having the duty to act judicially. A public authority has a duty to act judicially whenever it makes decisions that affect people's rights or interests, not only when it applies some judicial-type procedure in arriving at decisions; the basis on which impartiality operates is the need to maintain public confidence in the legal system.
The erosion of public confidence undermines the nobility of the legal system and leads to ensuing chaos. The essence of the need for impartiality was observed by Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, in Metropolitan Properties Co Ltd v Lannon: "Justice must be rooted in confidence and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking:'The judge was biased.'":599Public confidence as the basis for the rule against bias is embodied in the often-quoted words of Lord Hewart, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, that "t is not of some importance, but of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly be seen to be done". Bias may be imputed or apparent. Actual bias is established where it is established that a decision-maker was prejudiced in favour of or against a party. However, in practice, the making of such an allegation is rare as it is hard to prove. One form of imputed bias is based on the decision-maker being a party to a suit, or having a pecuniary or proprietary interest in the outcome of the decision.
Once this fact h
Canadian Bill of Rights
The Canadian Bill of Rights is a federal statute and bill of rights enacted by the Parliament of Canada on August 10, 1960. It provides Canadians with certain quasi-constitutional rights at Canadian federal law in relation to other federal statutes, it was the earliest expression of human rights law at the federal level in Canada, though an implied Bill of Rights had been recognized in the Canadian Common Law. The Canadian Bill of Rights remains in effect but is acknowledged to be limited in its effectiveness because it is a federal statute only, so not directly applicable to provincial laws; as to Canadian federal law, the Bill of Rights has subsequently acquired through judicial interpretation a quasi-constitutional status through the paramountcy doctrine. These legal and constitutional limitations were a significant reason that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was established as an unambiguously-constitutional-level Bill of Rights for all Canadians, governing the application of both federal and provincial law in Canada, with the patriation of the Constitution of Canada in 1982.
Since patriation, its usefulness at federal law in Canada is limited to issues pertaining to the enjoyment of property, as set forth in its section 1]—a slightly-broader "life and security of the person" right than is recognized in Section Seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In 1947, Saskatchewan passed into law a bill of rights which covered both fundamental freedoms and equality rights. Saskatchewan's Bill of Rights is considered to have had a formative influence on John Diefenbaker, from Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. Thirteen years Diefenbaker introduced the Canadian Bill of Rights, in 1960. In 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Civil rights activists in Canada had for some time been advocating for the elimination from Canadian laws of discrimination based on sex, ethnicity and religion. In 1936, four years before being elected to Parliament, John Diefenbaker began drafting his Bill of Rights; as a young boy, he saw injustice first-hand in the form of discrimination against French-Canadians, natives, Métis and European immigrants.
On March 16, 1950, a decade before the Canadian Bill of Rights became law, Diefenbaker a Saskatchewan MP, told a public forum why such a law was needed. Individuals' freedoms of religion, press and association are threatened by the state, he said. A Bill of Rights was needed to take a "forthright stand against discrimination based on colour, creed or racial origin". Diefenbaker advocated for the adoption of a bill of rights during the federal election campaign of 1957. In 1960, as prime minister, Diefenbaker introduced the Canadian Bill of Rights, it was enacted by Parliament; the Canadian Bill of Rights protects numerous rights, most of which were included in the Charter. Examples include: Freedom of speech in Canada and freedom of religion in Canada equality rights The right to life and security of the person, in another section, rights to fundamental justice The right to enjoyment of property, not enshrined in the Charter The right to counsel. Section 2 of the Bill of Rights reads as follows: 2.
Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgement or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared, in particular, no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to authorize or effect the arbitrary detention, imprisonment or exile of any person. The notwithstanding wording of section 2 is a precursor to the notwithstanding clause of the Charter. While the Bill of Rights is considered only quasi-constitutional because it was enacted as an ordinary Act of the Parliament of Canada, it contains the following provision: 3. Subject to subsection, the Minister of Justice shall, in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Governor in Council, examine every
In law, treason is criminal disloyalty to the state. It is a crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one's sovereign; this includes things such as participating in a war against one's native country, attempting to overthrow its government, spying on its military, its diplomats, or its secret services for a hostile and foreign power, or attempting to kill its head of state. A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor. In common law countries, treason covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife or that of a master by his servant. Treason against the king was known as high treason and treason against a lesser superior was petty treason; as jurisdictions around the world abolished petty treason, "treason" came to refer to what was known as high treason. At times, the term traitor has been used as a political epithet, regardless of any verifiable treasonable action. In a civil war or insurrection, the winners may deem the losers to be traitors.
The term traitor is used in heated political discussion – as a slur against political dissidents, or against officials in power who are perceived as failing to act in the best interest of their constituents. In certain cases, as with the Dolchstoßlegende, the accusation of treason towards a large group of people can be a unifying political message. Treason is considered to be different and on many occasions a separate charge from "treasonable felony" in many parts of the world. In English law, high treason was punishable by being hanged and quartered or burnt at the stake, although beheading could be substituted by royal command; those penalties were abolished in 1790 and 1973 respectively. The penalty was used by monarchs against people who could reasonably be called traitors. Many of them would now just be considered dissidents; the words "treason" and "traitor" are derived from the Latin tradere, to hand over. Christian theology and political thinking until after the Enlightenment considered treason and blasphemy as synonymous, as it challenged both the state and the will of God.
Kings were considered chosen by God, to betray one's country was to do the work of Satan. Many nations' laws mention various types of treason. "Crimes Related to Insurrection" is the internal treason, may include a coup d'état. "Crimes Related to Foreign Aggression" is the treason of cooperating with foreign aggression positively regardless of the national inside and outside. "Crimes Related to inducement of Foreign Aggression" is the crime of communicating with aliens secretly to cause foreign aggression or menace. Depending on a country, conspiracy is added to these. In Australia, there are federal and state laws against treason in the states of New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria. To Treason laws in the United States, citizens of Australia owe allegiance to their sovereign, the federal and state level; the federal law defining treason in Australia is provided under section 80.1 of the Criminal Code, contained in the schedule of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995. It defines treason as follows: A person commits an offence, called treason, if the person: causes the death of the Sovereign, the heir apparent of the Sovereign, the consort of the Sovereign, the Governor-General or the Prime Minister.
A person is not guilty of treason under paragraphs, or if their assistance or intended assistance is purely humanitarian in nature. The maximum penalty for treason is life imprisonment. Section 80.1AC of the Act creates the related offence of treachery. The Treason Act 1351, the Treason Act 1795 and the Treason Act 1817 form part of the law of New South Wales; the Treason Act 1795 and the Treason Act 1817 have been repealed by Section 11 of the Crimes Act 1900, except in so far as they relate to the compassing, inventing, devising, or intending death or destruction, or any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maim, or wounding, imprisonment, or restraint of the person of the heirs and successors of King George III of the United Kingdom, the expressing, uttering, or declaring of such compassings, inventions, devices, or intentions, or any of them. Section 12 of the Crimes Act 1900 creates an offence, derived from section 3 of the Treason Felony Act 1848: 12 Compassing etc deposition of the Sovereign—overawing Parliament etc Whosoever, within New South Wales or without, imagines, devises, or intends to deprive or depose Our M