The political value of rights depends on the availability of effective instruments for remedying violations of those rights. Recognizing this, the authors of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provided courts with three remedial alternatives for enforcing its provisions. Focusing on section 24(1) of the Charter, which permits courts to impose any remedy they consider “appropriate and just in the circumstances, ” this article assesses how Canadian courts have dealt with the remedial dilemmas inherent in Charter litigation. This assessment unfolds in three stages. First, it sets out a framework for analyzing remedial decision-making. Next, it summarizes the cases in which section 24(1) has been explicitly invoked to enforce Charter rights. Finally, the article examines the remedial implications of judicial enforcement of minority- language educational rights.

This article reviews the positions taken by the Atlantic provinces in Canadian constitutional reform negotiations over the past 25 years. It is based on public statements and documents and interviews with advisors to Atlantic governments. The stereotypes of regional dependence on federal transfers and conservative political culture are challenged as explanations for Atlantic constitutional positions. Atlantic leaders have not acted as dependents of Ottawa. While seeking to preserve federal authority in fiscal and regional policy, these provinces have sought to make it more responsive through guarantees for equalization and regional development, and through more regionally sensitive intrastate institutions. In some fields, preserved or enhanced provincial authority has been sought. And at key junctures, regional leaders and populations have opposed and blocked federal government preferences. Conservative values are not evident in regional support for rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or aboriginal self-government, among other relatively progressive positions. Differences among these provinces and between individual leaders, plus a shortage of bureaucratic resources in intergovernmental affairs, have limited the coherence and effectiveness of Atlantic interventions at times. While no common regional position has emerged, certain key goals are reasserted frequently. Selected reforms to intrastate institutions and the interstate division of powers have been sought to facilitate the use of both federal and provincial authority to end these provinces’ “have-not” status.

Governments often operate under considerable pressure to respond effectively to the emergence of increasingly complex policy dilemmas. This article first explains some key difficulties in bringing forth comprehensive policy interventions. Despite the ubiquity of social and political constraints to policy innovation, many failures can be attributed to public bureaucracies that are not designed to deal with complex problems, and which all too quickly exceed their policy-making capacities. This study then analyzes why comprehensive policy-making does sometimes occur, and links its occurrence to bureaucratic design factors, arguing that extending organizational capacity for innovation involves more than generous budgets and expertise. The article draws upon, and develops further, Mintzberg's ideas on administrative adhocracy to show how administrative units can be organized to enable bureaucracies to transcend professional compartmentalization and routine; and how structures can be designed for comprehensive policy innovation. The study focuses on Canadian federal bureaucracy, and it is supported by three case studies of recent policy experiments: energy, environment and AIDS.

This article examines the relationship between Canada's development assistance policy and its welfare state institutions. Through an analysis of the Canadian experience, the article argues that the differences between the social policies of developed countries help to understand the nature of their participation in the international aid regime. Although this hypothesis is not entirely new, it is here refined with the help of the comparative literature on the welfare state, and assessed systematically for Canada. Through this case study, the article explores the extent to which values and principles institutionalized at the domestic level influence foreign policy and the international order.

In televised political debates, opponents refer to different types of persons. This article examines references to persons and the arguments emerging from them. First of all, four main types of reference are identified: self-reference, reference to an opponent, reference to third parties and reference to experts. The article identifies the fallacies and particularly the different types of ad hominem arguments used by Robert Bourassa and Jacques Parizeau in referring to persons during a debate on the Canadian constitutional referendum of October 1992. Finally, a few theoretical considerations are developed on "peripheral" argumentation of political communication.

The role of mass media in reporting United States military operations is a subject on which there is considerable interest as well as diversity of opinion. The significance of media coverage has been recognized by both supporters and opponents of American use of military force to achieve foreign policy objectives. However, analysts disagree on whether the media tend to be supportive or critical of such ventures.

This study examines the above question with respect to the US invasion of Panama which began on December 20, 1989. Coverage of the invasion by three American networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) and two Canadian networks (CBC and CTV) in their major nightly television newscasts was compared for a 23-day period from December 15, 1989 to January 6, 1990. The data set picks up material on Panama beginning five days prior to the invasion and continues for three days following the surrender of General Noriega. In total 197 news stories are analyzed.

Examined in the study are factors such as volume of coverage (number of stories and running time); placement of items in the newscast; substantive issues given prominence; news sources utilized, and whether these sources were favourable or unfavourable toward US foreign policy positions; positive and negative “images” presented of the key actors involved in the invasion (Manuel Noriega, Guillermo Endara and George Bush); and whether overall, in both text and visual impact, the story was likely to be interpreted as either pro- or anti-invasion by viewers.