Q&A with Professor Robert Leckey
1- What is the main difference between a Civil union and a Marriage?
There is very little difference between a marriage and a civil union (a form of relationship created by the Quebec legislature in 2002). Married spouses and civil union spouses owe one another identical rights and duties during the relationship. After the formal termination of the relationship, married or civil union spouses may owe one another alimony or a sum required to equalize their property acquired during the relationship. One key difference is that a marriage may only be dissolved by a judge, in a divorce judgment; by contrast, if the couple has no children, civil union spouses may "dissolve" their civil union by a joint declaration concluded before a notary.
2- If Quebec does not legally recognize "Common Law" relationships, how should one indicate their status on forms such as taxes, immigration papers etc?
This is a tricky question. The short answer is that the same human relationship between two people may be characterized in one way for some purposes and in a different way for others. Federal law may characterize a relationship one way while provincial law does so differently. Or, more complicated still, the laws made by a single order of government, such as the government of Quebec, may differ amongst themselves in how they treat the same relationship. It's currently the case that many Quebec government programs, and the paper or Web forms associated with them, intend to recognize people's cohabitation relationships. So in such cases, you should indicate your "common law" relationship status. But what we call the private law of the family - the set of rules determining what enforceable duties one family member has towards another - does not really recognize unmarried couples. So you may need to declare a relationship on a government form while reminding yourself that the same relationship attracts no rights or duties as between the partners.
3- If a couple were not married, but lived together for many years and built their assets together, should the woman or man not be entitled to certain benefits?
The short answer, grounded in the current law of Quebec, is that a couple who have lived together for many years are treated as legal strangers. There is no "status" of cohabitant or spouse that the law will attach to one or the other of them. There is no possibility for one to say "As your former spouse, I am entitled to alimony" or "As your former spouse, I am entitled to a portion of the property we built up together, although it is all registered in your name."
Beyond that, if the partners built their assets together, it's possible that they will have purchased them in their joint names. If so, they would share those assets under general rules applicable to property in any circumstances. There is also the possibility that, on breakdown of a cohabitation relationship, one partner may be able to make a claim in "unjust enrichment," requiring the other to pay an amount of money. But it is hard to establish these claims, and doing so is often costly, time-consuming, and uncertain.
Further beyond that, opinions differ as to whether this state of affairs is unjust (as the question implies). Some people think that this state of affairs is discriminatory in a way that violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms' guarantee of equality. Some people think this state of affairs is unfair, but an unfairness of the kind that our elected lawmakers should address. Others think it's entirely fair.
For more information on these questions and many of the others raised at the Mini-Law evening, check out a policy study I completed in 2009 for the Institute for Research on Public Policy (IRPP), available at http://www.irpp.org/choices/archive/vol15no8.pdf.
Q&A with Professor Stephen Smith
1- People break rules every day; when does the breaking of a rule become anarchy?
A difficult question. Assuming that by anarchy we mean, roughly, a situation in which the population generally pays little or no attention to the law, it is clear that there are different degrees of anarchy.
From the perspective of a citizen trying to decide how to act, the issue raised by this question is whether and to what extent one should worry that one’s decision to disobey a particular law may lead others to disobey laws generally—both bad and good—and so lead to a more or less anarchical situation. Stated differently, one possible reason for obeying a law that one is firmly convinced is unjust is that doing so may lead others to think it is okay to disobey the law generally, and so lead some citizens to disobey just laws. Disobeying an unjust law, it might be thought, may lead others to disobey even just laws. And if this happens widely, the result may be anarchy.
The question, however, is whether my decision to disobey (what I regard as) an unjust law may lead other citizens to disobey even just laws. And the answer is—it all depends. It depends, for example, on whether others know of my disobedience, whether others’ allegiance to the law is weak or strong, and, in particular, whether others’ will regard the kind of disobedience in which I am engaged as suggesting that is okay generally to ignore the law or just that it is okay to disobey laws that can reasonably be regarded as unjust. So someone who disobeys what might be described as a moralistic law—for example a law forbidding the use of medical marijuana, is unlikely to be regarded as supporting or even setting an example for general disregard of the law. On the other hand, someone who, for example, deliberately damages government property might be thought to be trying to set just such an example.
2- We hear a lot about the demonstrations at the G20 conferences. Please comment on the effects these demonstrations have, both positive and negative.
Leaving aside the question of the substantive merits of the complaints that the demonstrators had about the G20, it is perfectly acceptable in principle for citizens to protest against the actions of the government (or anyone else for that matter), and in principle perfectly acceptable for those protests to take the form of demonstrations.
But insofar as such demonstrations lead to clashes with the ‘state’ or with the ‘law’, further questions arise. One question is whether the state, in particular the police, is itself acting legitimately, i.e., acting in accordance with its legislated powers and with the rights and liberties protected by the law. Insofar as the police was not so acting, there seems little reason, in principle, that citizens should feel morally compelled to comply with their demands, aside perhaps from the concern, mentioned in reply to the previous question, that others might be induced to disobey even where the police is acting legitimately (though there are often good reasons of self-interest to comply even with unlawful requests).
More broadly, and again keeping in mind the bad example argument, it is not clear that citizens should feel morally compelled to obey even lawful requests in cases where those requests, though lawful, are unjust. In many countries it is unlawful to engage in what most Canadians would regard as perfectly valid forms of protest. A further issue raised by this question is whether it is ever appropriate to disobey even a just law as a way of protesting against another unjust law or government policy. The answer would generally seem to be no—there are other ways of protesting which will not cause harm in the way that breaking a just law will normally cause harm. But there are some kinds of law that, while generally just, can be broken without causing significant harm to anyone and yet which, if broken, send a powerful message. An example of this kind of disobedience, which is relevant to the case of the G20 protestors, might be holding a ‘sit-in’ or something similar on government property. Particularly in the case—which is the normal case—where the protester is willing to accept the legal punishment for engaging in such behavior, this kind of disobedience would seem, in some cases anyway, entirely justified.
Protests of this kind were an important contribution, to mention just two obvious examples, to the end of segregation in the United States and apartheid in South Africa.
Q&A with Professor Tina Piper
1- What kind of an impact does the issue of copyright have on the financing of artistic endeavours such as film production?
Copyright ensures that the person who has created or owns the rights in a particular copyrighted work can then sell the work to others without worrying about third parties copying the work without permission. Thus copyright can help a film producer make money from selling copies of that film when it has been released which then helps fund things like the costs of filming the movie. Increasingly, however, money is being made off of things other than selling the actual film, although blockbuster types of releases still make significant money from selling the film and copies of it, and there is a great deal of public funding that subsidizes film production (particularly in Canada). The film (or song or book) might be used to leverage other non-monetary advantages like jobs or generate further funding for the creators of the work or may be used to drive traffic to a blog or other site to generate other revenue streams.
2- Legally speaking, is there a difference between copyright law and intellectual property law and if so, what is the difference?
Copyright law is the law that governs copyright; intellectual property law is the term used when one speaks about all of the different types of rights that govern intellectual property. These rights are patents (which cover inventions), copyright (which are rights in expression), trademarks (rights in brands), design rights (rights in designs), plant breeders’ rights, semiconductor pattern rights and others. Copyright law is a type of intellectual property law; this is the more precise term.
Q&A with Professor Richard Gold
1- Do you feel that pharmaceutical companies that manufacture in countries in need of medicines should be regulated to help those countries?
Pharma companies are already regulated in those countries in which they manufacture. These regulations cover issues as varied as quality control, evidence of safety and efficacy and price controls.
The problem is that pharma companies do not manufacture in the poorest countries. This is so because most of those countries do not have the infrastructure and skillsets necessary to manufacture, and because companies are generally not interested in selling into what would be, for them, a small market.
2- What is being done, if anything, to reduce the drug patent periods
Nothing. The Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, signed in 1994, has taken effect in all but the least developed countries. It establishes a minimum 20 year term. Even though least developed countries do not have to implement provisions dealing with pharmaceuticals until 2016, many of them have already implemented a 20 year term.
At present, international discussions – largely within developed countries – is to extent patents beyond 20 years. For example, the EU has Canada to extend its pharmaceutical patents in the current round of trade negotiations.
3- In your opinion, aside from money, what is required from developed countries to help poorer nations get their affordable medicines faster?
Money is clearly important since, not matter whether one wishes to obtain brand-name or generic pharmaceuticals, one needs money to pay for them and the staff to administer them.
Beyond that, local clinics (which also require money) are needed to bring the pharmaceuticals to those who need them. There has been significant success in getting compliance in developing countries – sometimes higher than in developed countries – but local outlets that are accessible are a must.
Further, formulations of pharmaceuticals that are geared to local strains and needs are required. While diseases such as AIDS may be global, there are different strains prevalent in different regions.
