さて皆さんいかがでしたか？そんなに難しい問題ではなかったでしょう。次に法律関係の背景知識がないと話がわかりにくく、長くて読みにくいカナダの最高裁判所に関する記事に関する読解問題をやって見ましょう。


The Supreme Court of Canada

（第1パラグラフ）
 
The Supreme Court of Canada sits in an austere, gray stone building above the Ottawa River, just down a slight hill from Parliament. But for most of 1999, the controversy swirling around the nine justices, led by Chief Justice Antonio Lamer might have led an observer unschooled in Ottawa geography to think that the jurists held the higher ground and were steamrolling their vision of the country over the people's elected representatives. Q.38In some 60 decisions the court underlined as never before its role as the guardian of Canadian rights and freedoms--- and occasionally, according to critics, as the radical interpreter and even inventor of those rights. 		 

（第2パラグラフ）
 
The court dominated the national agenda with rulings that extended the definition of secondary picketing, restricted doctor-patient confidentiality, and expanded the right to be tried in either official language across the country. It delved into the most intimate aspects of citizens' lives with decisions on divorce and gay rights, and, for the first time in its 124-year history, sparked interracial violence with one of its most controversial decisions, on East Coast aboriginal fishing rights. 		 

（第3パラグラフ）
 
However they applauded or decried specific decisions, legal experts generally agreed that Q.39the Lamer court had launched a new era of juridical activism, inspired by the 1982 Charter of Individual Rights and Freedoms. Q.39Chief Justice Lamer himself agrees. "Our decisions hit harder because they hit wider " said Lamer, 66, a former Quebec criminal defense lawyer who has led the court since 1990. Lamer, who is taking early retirement in January, was　unapologetic. From his point of view, the issue was not court activism but political passivity. "The kinds of problems we've been getting are issues that 25 years ago went to Members of Parliament," he said. "It's not for me or any judge to decide which laws should be passed, but if legislatures choose not to legislate, where else can people go except the courts?"

 

（第4パラグラフ）
 
Lamer's view was perhaps most dramatically demonstrated last May 20, when the court struck down an Ontario law that denied family benefits, to a Toronto lesbian splitting up with her partner. In its 8-1 decision, the court ruled that the law violated the "human dignity" guaranteed Canadians under the charter. In September, the justices forced the B.C. government to rehire a woman firefighter who failed its fitness standards on the grounds that the standards amounted to "systemic discrimination."

 

（第5パラグラフ）
 
Q.40"The court doesn't seem to think there's any inherent limits on what it can do," complains Chris Manfredi, a political science professor and constitutional expert at McGill University. The Reform Party has led a chorus of critics warning of the “Americanization" of the court system. Other legal experts argue just as passionately that unease over the court's decisions reflects a painful Canadian adjustment to the idea of a charter itself. "Compared to the American Bill of Rights, our charter is a young punk." says Eugene Meehan, president of the Canadian Bar Association. "There's a lot of rough edges."

  

（第6パラグラフ）
 
Q.40 Nothing seemed to embody the critical view of the court's aggressiveness and the preemptory nature of its interpretation of the charter more than the case of Donald Marshall and his eels. Marshall, a Micmac from New Brunswick, appealed a federal fine for fishing eels without a license on the basis of a 1760 treaty between his ancestors and the Crown. On September 17, the court in a 7-2 decision agreed with him, and in the process discerned a broader treaty right to "fish, hunt, and gather" for commercial purposes. Within days, the Atlantic fisheries erupted in physical combat between lobster fishers and natives, who claimed the judgment gave them the right to fish off-season. Aboriginal groups argued that the decision upheld their claims to other resources like timber and oil, and a shaken federal government faced the prospect of negotiations that could cost billions.

 

（第7パラグラフ）
 
Two months later, while refusing a Crown appeal to rehear the case, the justices reminded Canadians that this was about eels and nothing else. Critics noted that the limiting statement was written by the justice who, in her dissent from Marshall, warned that the court must take account of the consequences of its decisions. 		 

（第8パラグラフ）
 
That justice, Beverley McLachlin, 56, is preparing to replace Lamer as Chief Justice, Q41making her the first woman to fill the post. Her concern about consequences, however, won't make the court any less energetic on issues of individual rights. McLachlin says one of her aims is to "make the law work better" for Canadians. "We don't go out there with an agenda," she said in an interview. "But if a person comes with a serious complaint that his or her rights have been trampled on, and we simply said 'GO away,' we wouldn't be doing our job. Individuals feel empowered by the charter, and there is recognition from a lot of constituencies that access to justice is important." The influence of the court -and the controversy surrounding it-are certain to grow in the years ahead.

  


(38)   Why did the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada find themselves at the center of controversy in 1999?
  1. They created a series of important laws after consulting Canada's elected legislature.
  2. They made a number of decisions that interpreted people's rights in a new way.
  3. They pursued a conservative agenda that offended the feelings of minorities.
  4. They damaged the reputation of the court by ignoring the views of ordinary citizens.

(39)   What can be said about the Canadian Charter of Individual Rights and Freedoms?
  1. It is a much more active and aggressive law than the American Bill of Rights.
  2. It has given Canadian citizens a way to fight against the decisions of lawmakers.
  3. It is gradually forcing Canada to become a more conservative society like America.
  4. It has cut the Supreme Court off from the majority of　the public in Canada.

(40)   For Chris Manfredi, the case of Donald Malshall and the eels would seem to support the view that
  1. the court tends to put commercial interests before the protection of the environment,
  2. the court is too preoccupied with the consequences of its decisions.
  3. It is increasingly difficult for the court to interpret the law in a way that will satisfy all groups. '
  4. the court is taking too many liberties in its interpretation of the law.

(41)   What effect will Justice Beverley McLachlin's leadership most likely have?
  1. Her more practical approach will lead to the court adopting a lower profile.
  2. Canadians will have little choice but to search for other ways to protect their rights.
  3. The court is likely to pay more attention to issues of women's rights and gender equality.
  4. Her belief in the importance of rights means that the court will maintain its expanded role.